Little Ms. Sunshine

World Is Ending...

2011-12-14T06:46:00.000-06:00

I received a wedding invitation on Facebook. That's it; the world is ending.

It's even funnier because when I went to their wedding website, under guest information it said it was going to be a "formal affair."

Back in MY day, people MAILED their invitations. Now get off my lawn!!

Don't Be a Dumbass...Problem Solved!

2011-12-12T19:58:00.001-06:00

Second to last letter. This kids, is why you don't make major life decisions based on what OTHER PEOPLE think is going to be best for you.

It's one of my secret dreams to become an advice columnist and end every answer with "don't be a dumbass."

MIL in the article is no doubt a manipulative "B" but letter writer is extremely dumb to intentionally make that kind of a decision(s) based off a "promise." If you're not confident enough in yourself to stand your ground in something as important as bringing a child into the world, what kind of example does that set for a child?

Dennis "Equality Sucks" Prager

2011-11-05T13:28:00.001-05:00

I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt and sometimes believe that even though their words and actions are indicating they're an asshole, maybe they're not Really an asshole. Not so with Dennis Prager. I've read enough of his work over the last couple years to understand that he truly believes that equality is bad for women. And NOW he's not even trying to bother with mincing words.
Read more »

Chicago Marathon

2011-10-12T05:57:00.000-05:00

The Chicago Marathon was, in one word, Amazing.

I'm so glad that my sister and I decided to do this together, and also for the support from Greg and my parents who came to watch. This was the culmination of almost a year's worth of training (and 3 pairs of running shoes!) starting in November of last year when I decided to run a half marathon (13.1 miles) and continuing on after that to train for the full (26.2 miles).

I feel like I could have trained more, but I did a good job of being consistent. I'm lucky that I dont have to stand all day or do manual labor at my job, but it's still not easy to commute an hour, work nine hours, commute an hour back...and then go to the gym. It's really easy to say "screw it, I've had a long day and I'm really tired." It's not easy to get up at 6:30am every Sunday and run 10+ miles by yourself each time. But I did it, and I'm really proud of myself. I may have walked a bit on my training runs and during the race, but I essentially ran 26.2 miles!

We got to Chicago very early...about 6:00am Sunday. My awesome mom ordered us a limo to take us there. It was more like a van...but still, we arrived in style. I had food and gatorade in my system. I was not going to repeat my mistake of not eating before the half marathon. Goal number one was to finish. Goal number two was to not throw up. I used the restroom, twice. I was ready.

The start area was huge. I found my assigned start corral, which I had qualified for with my half marathon time. But I noticed the pace groups there were 8 minutes per mile. I was not feeling like that was going to happen for me, so I moved back to the beginning of the open start area by the 9 minutes per mile pacers. We basically walked up to the start. It took about 10 minutes to cross the tracking mat.

The first 3 miles was probably one of my favorite parts of the race. People were fighting for spots in the street. The crowd was insane. I am truly in awe of the amazing people of Chicago who came to watch and cheer. There was not a single area of the course that didn't have people cheering. People came out of their houses with hoses for runners to run under.

The first half I went out fast, about 9:00 minute per mile pace (estimated 4 hour finishing time). I kept seeing people with 4:00 on their backs. At the expo you could sign up for a pace group and put a goal time on your back. I didn't do that because I had no idea how I would do. I didn't want to put 4:00 on my back and finish in 5:00. Plus, if you were an hour behind (like the guy with 3:10 by the 4:00 group) everyone would know.

Wise move because....I had to slow down. And by slow down, I mean walk. Several times. I made it to mile 15 without really walking (only slowed down for water/Gatorade). After that, I had to stop and walk about 6 or 7 times. Not for too long, maybe up to a minute each time. I am not surprised that I had to walk because that's what I did on my training runs. I would stop for water, stretch, walk a minute, etc. And, the longest training run I did was 20 miles. I did one 20 miler 3 weeks before the race.

The people on the course were super helpful. They had plenty of aid stations. When I got to about 24.5 there was a guy on a PA yelling something like "YOU CAN DO THIS. YOU ARE GOING TO FINISH THE CHICAGO MARATHON. YOU ARE GOING TO BE PART OF HISTORY!" And that gave me the motivation I needed to run the last part of the race and finish strong. Greg and my parents saw me finish, but I didn't see them. I was just looking straight ahead at the finish. In fact, I didn't really take in the crowd as much at the end as I did in the beginning due to being so focused on just crossing the line...

Kept moving through the finish area. They don't really let you sit down. You get a medal and protective blanket. You can get bananas, Gatorade, or whatever you want (beer was available, didn't take it). My only thought was Must Sit Down because it started to hit me that I just ran 26.2 miles. THEN I saw people directing runners to the family reunion area which was only 3 blocks away. I thought I could make it...I was wrong. I walked about a block more, and then just sat down on concrete. Got up...walked a little more....sat down again. Finally stumbled over there, and luckily my mom spotted me right away.

The next 30 minutes to an hour was a daze. I went to lie down on a grassy area...walked over to medical to get ice bags...sat down some more. Walking was somewhat difficult. Unfortunately I didn't have the energy to walk the half mile back to the bleachers to see my sister finish. I didn't feel like eating, but Greg practically forced me to and that was the right call. I instantly felt better (less nauseous). I found out my final finishing time was 4 hours, 14 minutes, and 28 seconds! Average mile pace was 9:43.

Then Colleen finished! She seemed to be recovering better than I was, wasn't having issues walking or anything. The bad news was we had to walk back to the train station to get home! It was 10 blocks! I made a deal with my dad that I would walk halfway, we would look for a restaurant to get lunch, then walk the rest of the way back. So that's what we did, and everyone made it. Leg muscles are still a little sore. I can't say for sure if I'll ever do a marathon again, but I know this. After running Chicago, I can't imagine ever running a little rinky dink marathon. I don't think anything would compare! Chicago is simply the best.

Reading Comments on Internet Bad For Your Health

2011-08-11T20:57:00.001-05:00

Reading comments on the internet makes me lose faith in humanity.

Headline: Five Year Old Dies After Mom Can't Afford Multiple Prescriptions
Comments: Well if she couldn't afford it tough shit. FREE MARKET!!!!

Note: I'm not anti business. I don't think corporations are evil. Even pharmaceutical companies who probably do some serious price gouging. I get that R & D costs money. I just think a little bit more compassion and common sense would go a long way.

Its Hot Out, Yo!

2011-07-24T20:17:00.000-05:00

First weekend without cable. It's been...ok. Oh it took me two hours to cancel it. Seriously. I called during my lunch break at work on Thursday (can't cancel online) and the prompt said "hold time may be in excess of 10 minutes." So I thought whatever I'll just do other stuff till someone picks up (I have a headset at work). Well after an hour...my other line rang so I had to hang up.

At&t customer service is only open till 6pm so I had to call while driving home from work. I just set the phone down and put it on speaker until someone picked up...45 minutes later. Good news is I got a free upgrade on my internet. Talk about red tape though.

Anyway this weekend I watched several episodes of Parks and Recreation which is an awesome show. I find that I tend to favor shows that prominently feature a talented supporting cast rather than a show that only focuses on one or two main characters. That being said Greg and I have also recently watched a couple episodes of Arrested Development and I'm just not into it so far. I know all the cool kids loved that show and its now considered a cult classic...but yeah, just not feeling it.

We informed both sets of parents today about our decision to cut out cable and both sets of parents asked how we were going to get news. Apparently they haven't caught on to this "internet" thing yet :) Plus Roku (the box we got that streams Netflix and some other free and subscription based services) has a news channel where you can watch all the cable shows...some are a day behind though.

Ran 14 miles today.10 minute pace so not super fast...but damn I was tired. It was hot out too...even though I started at 6:45am.

I saw my neighbor on a 4 wheeler today. On the street. We do not have dirt roads or lots of land in our neighborhood.

I really want summer to be over with. It's freaking hot out plus I don't have much to look forward to until the fall. Marathon, seeing the fam, birthdays, Ren Fest, Christmas...yeah, summer can move along.

Magic Bullet

2011-07-19T11:00:00.000-05:00

I was flipping channels on my not yet cancelled cable...and came across an informercial on Home Shopping Network for "Magic Bullet."

First of all, "Magic Bullet" was definitely NOT what I thought it was (although it kind of looks like it) it is ACTUALLY some sort of fancy blender. And the women on here (including Jenny McCarthy) are super annoying. These women are acting like they freaking invented strawberry banana smoothies.

Also, and I don't want to be a hypocrite here since I'm not super adept with cooking gadgets...but there are three grown women on tv telling America that one of the reasons this particular gadget is so great is because its "not complicated." AND (this is an exact quote) "There's no buttons!!"

I find it amusing how our society simultaneously thinks women should get back in the kitchen to put their God given abilities to use AND ALSO thinks we are staring at our blenders going "THE BUTTONS!! THEY'RE SO CONFUSING!! If only someone would design something phallic shaped that didn't have any buttons...my life would be so much easier!"

Should I Cancel Cable?

2011-07-13T20:59:00.001-05:00

I'm thinking about canceling my cable, but this is something I've had my entire life and I'm not sure how hard the adjustment would be. My cable viewing is probably 70% reality tv (mostly TLC and HGTV) 20% old sitcoms and 10% news (mostly Rachel Maddow because I <3 her).

I can probably get old sitcoms on Netflix if I'm really in the mood for it, I get the news online like most people under 40 (I could probably find highlights online from Rachel's show).....and I'm just starting to feel like its not worth $60 a month to watch people on TLC eat toilet paper or buy 79 boxes of mac n cheese....or watch professional designers tell people "hey if you're trying to sell your house maybe you should paint your walls beige instead of bright purple or canary yellow...oh and you might want to take down your precious moments/troll doll collection while you're at it."

Of course I also have a husband to consider but he doesn't watch as much tv as I do. He is more into online gaming (which also costs $15 a month). He said he mostly watches Family Guy before bed which is probably also on Netflix.

Will I go crazy not being able to "channel surf?" Will I feel left out and uncool when all my coworkers are discussing the most recent episode of Modern Family & I'm a season behind? Will I feel taunted by my television knowing that it could be providing a front row seat to Hoarders? These are the important questions I must consider.

Actual Conversation Heard At Gym

2011-07-06T06:58:00.002-05:00

Girl 1: Does it count as burning calories if you don't eat any calories?
Girl 2: Did you really not eat anything today?
Girl 1: I had a cracker and 2 almonds.

Traditional Marriage

2011-06-27T22:12:00.000-05:00

I hate the phrase "traditional marriage." I think if you're going to use it, you need to clarify traditional as compared to what? 1950? 1920s? 1800s? Middle Ages? Biblical times?

Marriage is an institution that has evolved and will continue to evolve both culturally and legally. Marriage today looks different than it did 50 or 100 or a 1000 years ago. Not just in regards to societal expectations but also in regards to a woman's legal status and rights as a person.

Marriage in biblical times sometimes meant that a husband took multiple wives, or perhaps one wife but with many concubines (which was not hidden or frowned upon) or that teenage girls were married off to much older men. Also, most marriages were arranged and treated like a transaction, which involved a dowry. Heterosexual monogamy where one chooses his/her spouse is a relatively new normal standard if we're comparing it to as far back as we have records regarding marriage.

Good sources for more information on this include The History of the Wife, anything by Stephanie Coontz (author/history & family studies professor), or the Bible. I'm sure there's many more as well that I'm not aware of.

I get really exasperated when people act like marriage has looked one specific way since the history of time because that is clearly not the case.

Thoughts on College

2011-06-27T21:52:00.000-05:00

I've read a lot of articles recently about how higher education is the next "bubble" that's going to burst, arguing against formal education and arguing that many students have unrealistic expectations and end up drowning financially due to college loan debt.

This article provides a counter argument, and I tend to agree that in the long run, college is and will continue to be a good investment for a lot of (though not all) people - with a few caveats:

I think college and especially taking on student loans in this economy needs to be thought through carefully, and those who choose that path should proceed with caution. i.e don't go to a private school you can't afford when you can go to a state school, consider community college for 2 years, be wary of non-accredited for-profit schools, consider work programs on or off campus, and by all means do everything in your power to finish. As the article stated, 50% of people who enter 4 year programs don't finish, and sadly that does take a financial toll & the benefits of going (statistically speaking, not talking about Bill Gates here) drop dramatically if you don't finish.

I think it's unfair to expect 18 year olds to know what they want to do in 10 years, but it's important to at least think about early on. You can chase your dream, but it's important to have realistic expectations too. Maybe it's not a great idea to take on 100K debt to go to a prestigious art school for 4 years if there's not a great demand for jobs that require 4 year art degrees, and the jobs that are out there pay 20K a year.

I'm not such a pessimist that I would tell a kid "college is a waste of money; you'll end up being a barista with an 80K loan weighing you down till you retire" but I would advise to proceed with caution & especially so with anything that legitimately does require six figure loans (med school or law school). If you're going to law or med school you better be damn sure.

The number one piece of advice I would give though to anyone considering college is to finish. This isn't meant to make anyone feel bad who didn't finish because I get that life happens, but if you decide to go to college, you should go with the intention of finishing.

Note to Self (and Internet)

2011-06-15T12:48:00.000-05:00

Do not sign up for any webinars unless you want to receive a gazillion unsolicited phone calls and emails.

For businesses, the notion that deep discounting is the way to acquire loyal customers is equally dangerous. Competing on price doesn’t get you love; delivering high quality products and services, engaging with your customers and creating unique experiences does. The best customers buy experiences, not price.

Tech Crunch

Dream

2011-06-15T05:36:00.000-05:00

I had the weirdest/funniest dream ever, and I need to write it down.

For some reason I was traveling to London by myself, but I was having issues with security in the US because my passport still had my maiden name on it (In real life I would have taken care of this if I knew I was going on a trip; it actually does still have my maiden name on it though).

So they take me into the back room and to prove I was American, they had me recite a Bible verse. Any Bible verse. I chose John 3:16, probably the only one I could recite from memory. Any ways, knowing John 3:16 was sufficient enough for them to know that I was truly an American...but then here's the funnier part.

This is a dream of course...but in order for other agents to realize that I was an American, they made me rub my hands in a mixture of mayonnaise and ham & cheese crumbs so that I would "smell American." I just about died laughing when I woke up.

Also part of the dream but not as funny was that I ended up packing Greg's clothes by accident instead of mine (again, would never happen in real life).

I wonder what it all means?!

Katie Couric - NOT Like Oprah

2011-06-07T12:52:00.001-05:00

Katie Couric thinks her new daytime talk show will be "like Oprah" HAHAHA! Oh Katie, no one will be "like Oprah." NO ONE.

Poor Katie. Everyone had such high expectations for you, being the first solo lady news anchor on a major network and all. And then your ratings sucked, and everyone gave you a hard time. No one pointed out that all the other ratings on major networks also sucked. But that is besides the point. The point is that it is not your fault that no one watches the news on major TV networks unless they are older than age 55.

I do not blame you, Katie! I still think you are a respectable, smart and personable lady. But you will probably not be successful in your daytime talk show endeavor. Most people aren't. Except for obviously Oprah and maybe Ellen. I don't think you can be like Ellen either. Although you do have blond hair and are personable, I doubt you are as funny or as cool as Ellen.

Plus your comeback story wouldn't be as awesome, and man do we love our comeback stories! Sure, you're not on the news anymore, but you were successful for awhile and people generally like you.

You did not get shunned for being the first gay woman to come out on television and have everyone in Hollywood hate you AND THEN have everyone in Hollywood love you because being gay is cool and awesome now. Thank to Ellen. Seriously, thanks to Ellen. Cast of Glee, Eric Stonestreet, Oscar from the Office - send Ellen some cookies.

Anyway, back to Katie. Not Like Ellen. Unless maybe you have awesome dance moves like Ellen, maybe then you will stand a chance. But I doubt it...

I don't know what you should do, Katie! You're pretty famous and all so it's not like you can get a job folding pants at The Gap.

Maybe you can have a speaking career, and just go around giving advice to young women. I hear you have given some pretty good speeches, including one at Princeton in 2009 in which you said something that I think is very wise.

I'm sure you are all graduating with big career goals. You may also have a dream of being married and having a family, and at some point the career may take a backseat. There is no more challenging, rewarding or important job than being a mom. I just want to say this--sometimes dreams of domestic bliss are interrupted by reality. People get divorced. People die. You need to protect yourself. I was very happily married to a wonderful man. He was diagnosed with colon cancer and nine months later, he was gone. I was a single mom with two very young children. This was not part of the plan. Luckily, I had a career and therefore the financial independence to support my children. Many women in my situation are not nearly as fortunate. And while I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, I want you all to be prepared for the unexpected and approach some of the big life decisions you'll be making with your eyes wide open.

You are so wise, Katie! But you are not being wise about this daytime talk show thing. Sorry.

Ministry

2011-05-21T13:23:00.001-05:00

This weekend I'm riding solo as my hubby is out of town at one of his internet friend's wedding. (I know, it sounds weird. But if you know Greg - it's not).

It was a perfect day to go for a run, and since it's the weekend I decided to do a long run. Instead of running in my neighborhood I drove down to HEB so I could park and run the bike path.

I noticed there was quite a crowd; people were everywhere. Then I remembered the Woodlands Ironman Triathlon was today. I was afraid I wasn't going to be able to run the path, but it was open. They closed part of the actual street for the race.

So I did my 6-7 mile run (not that long considering I'm doing a marathon this year, but I'm working on it!) and when I came back I saw that the first few athletes were coming in to the bike dismount so even though I was pretty tired, I decided to watch for a few minutes.

There was a big crowd, probably at least a few hundred people by where I was. So I find a spot to watch, and I notice this lady in front of me is selling bottled water with homemade labels on it. I heard a couple people ask what she was selling it for, and she explained that it was her son's ministry called More Than Sports. It was a Christian organization, and they were supporting sex trafficking ministries. She didn't mention a specific sex trafficking ministry (International Justice Mission is the only one I know off the top of my head).

I watched her sell a couple. And I thought it was weird that her son wasn't with her since it was for his organization, but maybe he was working a different part of the crowd. I don't know. Anyways, she looked back at me a couple times. I had just gotten back from a run, and a bottle of water would have been nice. I had one in my car, but like I said I wanted to watch the race for a few minutes.

I think she was going to ask me if I wanted to buy one, but then she realized I probably didn't have money on me because I was just in a tank top and running shorts (I didn't). Then I think maybe she thought about just giving me one, but then decided not to because if other people saw me getting one for free, they would want one for free too.

I couldn't help thinking that she's doing all these great things for the Christian ministries she's involved in (or her son is) but she's not meeting a need that was literally right in front of her (or behind her).

I don't want to give the wrong impression. I wasn't dying. I had caught my breath by the time I got to the race checkpoint, and I wasn't on the ground or anything. But I was pretty much dripping sweat at that point (it's about 90 degrees, and I had just run almost 7 miles). And, my face was beet red. I know this because I looked at it in the mirror when I got back to my car.

If she had offered me one (for free) I don't know if I would've taken it. I probably would've said "no that's ok, I don't have any cash." Maybe if she had insisted I would have taken one.

Maybe it's dumb, but I think if it were me and I had extra waters whether I was selling them or had a cooler of them for me and friends, or whatever - if I saw someone just standing around who clearly looked like they needed a water, I think I would have offered.

I don't want to dismiss the importance of supporting formal ministries. Many of them do great things, and they need money to do it. I'm not out there fundraising for any of these ministries, and this woman was. But I also think it's important to not ignore the needs right in front of us either. The smallest thing can make someone's day, and that can be ministry right there.

Church

2011-05-15T08:13:00.002-05:00

Greg and I have agreed to visit his sister's church that their family recently started attending. I've been reading up on it this morning, and I have decided that I don't want to be a part of any church that doesn't have women involved in leadership.

That doesn't mean a woman has to be head pastor or even on the pastoral team, but if you have several elders and women aren't included, then to me that means that you have a core group of leaders and decision makers that are exclusively men.

I've seen so many churches with structures like this. They almost always have a Women's Ministry leader who is supposed to represent all women in the church or something, and maybe they'll have a Children's Pastor (if the church is REALLY conservative they'll call her a "Children's Director" because of course they can't actually have the word "Pastor" or "Minister" after a woman's name on their program.)

This particular church I'm researching has two of seven women on staff, not bad right? But the titles are 1. Students/Girls and 2. Financial Administrator.

A couple things jump out at me here. I thought maybe the first title was actually code for "youth pastor" with a girls group thrown in, but they have a guy whose title is "Worship/Young Adults" so I assume he is the equivalent of a youth pastor and the "Students/Girls" person is in charge of the Children's Ministry and probably also leads a group for preteen girls or something like that.

There is no mention of a Women's Ministry in anyone's title, and I do hope that a church wouldn't refer to women as "girls" at least on their website (I don't think always inappropriate, but it depends on context; i.e. "Hey Greg, I'm going out with the girls" is different than "We need something for the girls to do in the church.")

The second thing is that I think it's funny that the Financial Administrator's bio is last considering that's probably the most important person in the church after the lead pastor. If a church is squandering money or not making money, or spending too much money, or hoarding too much money... that church is going to fail. Like it or not, churches need money to operate. That doesn't mean I think all churches want is money (in fact I believe most churches have good intentions about money) but any church who denies that money is important to grow their ministries is in denial.

I'm not saying I think modern churches today are sexist chauvinist pigs. But I think it's more subtle than that. I can't help but wonder why churches will let women count their money, minister to their kids, and have all kinds of women's ministries and retreats where ladies can speak to other ladies, but when it comes time to lead the church as a whole and discuss mission and direction, they don't have women on board making those types of decision. (And I don't mean the "But I'm sure they all ask for their wives' opinions" BS).

I mean that I want to see a church where a woman is on the regular speaking rotation. I want to see a church where women are amongst the elders. I know there are churches out there that have that, so maybe I just need to do a better job of seeking them out.

I'm still going to go visit. I might even like it. But I seriously doubt I will give any of my money or become a regular attender unless I see that their leadership actually does include women in a real way.

Amazing

2011-05-04T13:43:00.000-05:00

Sometimes it amazes me that I work at an IT company.

Every time I think I'm going to get fired, someone will ask me to do something that they could easily figure out themselves through a quick Google search, and I realize that maybe I do have some job security after all.

Because if I'm gone...who else would explain to our technical support team how to dial an international number or use the fax machine?

Money

2011-03-30T20:19:00.001-05:00

Money can not solve every problem. But it can solve an awful lot of them.

Stripping For Jesus

2011-03-24T20:20:00.005-05:00

Old Town Spring has a health club that is offering a fitness class called "Pole Fitness For Jesus" in which women exercise by dancing on poles to upbeat contemporary Christian music.

I heard about this on the radio last week and didn't really think much of it, but one of my Facebook friends commented on it, so I kind of got curious as to what the story was as far as why the fitness class needed to reference Jesus.

I did some Googling and found some interviews with the founder, and now I'm just angry. Not because I think it's wrong to "pole dance" during a workout but because of the way that it is presented. It's like this woman thinks she's better than actual pole dancers or better than women who like to take pole dance fitness classes, but aren't doing it for Jesus.

The founder said her goal is to teach fellow female churchgoers how to get fit, work their legs and core and to make a connection with God. Hmm... one of these things is not like the other!

"We do the upbeat contemporary Christian music because people have to bring their church program to get into the class, so we basically are just continuing the whole worship thing here," she said.

Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with pole dancing for fitness. But to say you're doing it to "worship God" just strikes me the wrong way. On top of that, she's only letting "churchgoers" into the class (must bring a church program!!) because heathens aren't allowed to don those clear plastic stripper heels and suggestively swing their hips around the pole... at least not while listening to music About Jesus.

If people didn't take Christian music seriously before.. no one is going to now!! At least not if this "Strip for Jesus" thing spreads (no pun intended!!)

The more I think about it, this whole thing is just stupid! Forget "wrong" or "unholy" or "sacrilegious" - It's just plain stupid. There's a million different kinds of exercise that incorporate dancing, even Sexy Dancing. Why, do you need to "pole dance?" And, in stripper heels no less. The Fox video linked above actually quoted a woman saying those giant gaudy heels are "good for legs and glutes." Yep, it's good to work out in stripper heels! Actually, it's NOT

Don't get me wrong... I'm 5'1" so I love me some heels. Generally though, orthopedists will say because of the lack of cushion, it's not good to wear high heels for an extended period of time just doing normal activities like walking, and that you shouldn't wear them while dancing. One would assume this would also apply to dancing on a pole. I seriously can't believe they quoted that woman and made no attempt to correct it, or clarify or even say "well actually, some people don't think that's true." But what do I know... maybe I should show up to the Dallas Half Marathon this weekend in stripper heels. RUNNING FOR JESUS!!

I don't know... if that's what makes you get the energy to work out and feel good about yourself, fine. Just don't pretend like you're better than other people because the word "Jesus" is in it. And dammit, be careful in those heels!!

New Blog

2011-03-19T15:32:00.001-05:00

Hey, look I have a new blog!! For my "S#I% Greg Says"

Quotes from my conversations with Greg will now be posted there and anything else I have to say to the ~~Internet~~ 3 people who read my blog will be posted here!!

<3 Kim

I Wish That This Was Not For Real.

2011-03-12T13:15:00.001-06:00

In Cleveland, TX - a small town about 30 miles outside Houston, 18 boys and men ranging from middle school age to age 27 were charged with participating in the gang rape of an 11-year-old girl.

Take a moment to read that sentence out loud to yourself. And then take a moment to read this

We have gone from blaming women for "getting" raped because of the way they dressed, talked, acted, walked, etc. to blaming young women, to blaming LITTLE GIRLS.

The attorney for the men (EIGHTEEN OF THEM) is asking why the girl didn't report the rape to the police.

Residents of Cleveland are being quoted as saying the girl "dressed older" and lied about her age, and that the sex was consensual. Nevermind that an 11 year old can't legally consent. Even if this girl was 17 (age of consent in Texas) the facts of this case as outlined in the Houston Chronicle and other publications don't point towards consent, at all.

Others in Cleveland are blaming the victims mother for the attack, stating she should have kept a better eye on her child and know of her whereabouts.

Here's a "nice" quote - "Maturity or not I'm pretty sure she knew what she was doing," Robin Smith, 24, a cashier in Cleveland, said as she shopped this week.

I understand that this horrible crime is putting a national spotlight on Cleveland and obviously not in a good way, but when the concern seems to be directed at the student body of Cleveland High School, because some of their football players got arrested... and NOT towards the 11 YEAR OLD GIRL who was gang raped (they have the cell phone video of this, so there is no "allegedly" necessary) I literally want to throw up.

Professional

2011-03-05T08:25:00.000-06:00

Kim: I'm going to Old Navy this weekend. Do you need anything?
Greg: I need some shorts.
Kim: Cargo shorts?
Greg: Well.... I like cargo shorts. But they're not really professional.
Kim: Yeah...ok....shorts, in general - not really 'professional.'*
Greg: Oh... ok. Then I need some pants.

I have been lucky enough to work for a company that basically has no dress code, but I still choose to not wear jeans at least half the time because I like dressing up. However, I would not show up in shorts. I thought most people knew that shorts are generally frowned upon in the workplace!

Love Her!

2011-02-21T07:33:00.000-06:00

"...a lower quality of life is a byproduct of inadequate health care and inadequate family planning options" - Hillary Clinton via Houston Chronicle

Ugh

2011-02-18T20:29:00.001-06:00

Rep Jackie Speier is awesome. I'm glad that there are men and women in congress standing up for women, specifically low income women, who do desperately needs the kinds of services that planned parenthood offers.

I don't post about this kind of stuff in Facebook anymore but I am disgusted that congress is voting to defund family planning, cancer screening and STD testing under the guise of defunding abortion services when, in fact, there are Already laws in place prohibiting federal funds from being used for abortions (the only exceptions are for rape - which republicans tried to define as only as "forcible" rape; that language was quickly changed after the shit storm that ensued after women's rights activists brought it to peoples attention, and also for incest and also to protect the life of the mother (which is controversial if you happen to need a life saving abortion at a catholic hospital)

I agree that we should be focusing on jobs not on ideology. And if you happen to be against abortions then perhaps you should work on making family planning more, not less accessible. For crying out loud didn't we just spend a whole fucking year listening to republicans go on and on about how government has no place in private medical decisions? Make no mistake, the people actively fighting to make abortion illegal (and this right is being chipped away at state by state, bill by bill) are ALSO against contraception. Seriously, check out some of the major "pro life" websites beyond the home page. The evidence is there and if roe v wade ever does get overturned, birth control will be next.

Now if you made it through my rant you shall be rewarded with a Kim\Greg quote

Greg: What are you blogging about?
Kim: birth control.
Greg: AGAIN?!

:)

Very Poor (Failure)!

2011-02-17T21:53:00.000-06:00

I just scored this quiz on how I would rate as a 1930s wife. Apparently I would rate a -9. 0-24 is "very bad (failure)" so -9 is pretty epic.

I also learned that "congress" is a 1930s euphemism for S-E-X.

Kim: I don't know what marital congress means. Wait, does it mean sex?
Greg: Yes, it means sex.
Kim: Yay, I get a point!!

More Shit Greg Says

2011-02-10T18:37:00.000-06:00

(I'm basically just posting these to entertain Jessica :) )

2/10/11

Kim: What is that note on your hand?
Greg: It's my palm pilot
Kim :::blank stare:::
Greg: Because it's on my palm. It was supposed to be clever.

Kim: I need to make dinner and do laundry. I'm going to be like, a real wife tonight.
Greg: Awesome.

::: 2 min later:::

Greg: WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!
Kim: Uh...laundry
Greg: YOU DON'T SEPARATE?! THE LIGHTS AND THE DARKS?!
Kim: No, I don't have time for that shit! I mean, I wash my bras separate... everything else I pretty much just wash together.
Greg: No wonder my tshirts aren't as white as they used to be...

Note: We have been married, and I have been doing our laundry, for over 4 years.

Shit Greg Says - The Gym Edition

2011-02-07T20:43:00.000-06:00

Greg: It is almost 7:45pm!! WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?
Kim: I was at the gym... didn't you get my text? I left work a little late, there was some traffic, then I ran 4 miles on the treadmill, and then I came home.
Greg: YOU COULD HAVE BEEN ABDUCTED!
Kim: I am not going to get abducted.
Greg: YOU ARE TINY AND CUTE AND EASILY ABDUCTABLE!
Kim: I AM NOT....ok, I am all of those things. But I'm still not going to get abducted. I have common sense, the parking lot has lights, and they have security guards in golf carts to make sure little girls like me don't get abducted.
Greg: From now on you need to call me as soon as you leave the gym, stay on the phone with me while you're walking to your car and when you start moving then you can hang up.
Kim: I think you're being a little ridiculous.
Greg: What are you going to do if you get abducted?! You will be tied up in a van unable to communicate with me!
Kim: Can't you come save me Liam Neeson style?
Greg: I won't be able to! You'll end up getting killed and your last thought will be why didn't Greg come save me? I can't live with that.
Kim: Soooo.... what you're saying is....you're NOT as awesome as Liam Neeson?
Greg: I am not as awesome as Liam Neeson.
Kim: ok. I will call you when I leave the gym.

Greg: You can't have a brownie!
Kim: Why not? You're having a brownie...
Greg: I'm a fatty. Fatties are allowed to have brownies. People who are training for marathons are not allowed to have brownies.
Kim: I'm failing to see the logic here.

Shit Greg Says

2011-02-05T12:18:00.000-06:00

Kim: Do you think you're going to want to have a 30th birthday party?
Greg: Yes. Remember - dancers in their underwear, Huey Lewis and The News.
Kim: Huey Lewis and The News?
Greg: He's kind of a burnout so... it could happen.

Greg: I hate how you open the blinds.
Kim: Why?
Greg: Because I'm in my underwear!
Kim: It's 12:30 in the afternoon; it's past underwear time.
Greg: There is no such thing as past underwear time.

Work

2011-02-01T19:25:00.000-06:00

Kim: You can't put "I'm excited about the next phase of my life including my wife and eventual expansion of my family" on your cover letter.*
Greg: Why? It's a plus for men. People think men with kids work harder.
Kim: If I put "I'm looking forward to expanding my family" on a cover letter it would be torn to shreds!
Greg: Too bad you don't have a penis.

*Note: I am NOT pregnant.

To Be Fair...

2011-01-29T11:53:00.000-06:00

I often post about how Greg makes fun of me. But to be honest, I make fun of him too. That's just how we roll.

Greg: It's one of my dreams to learn how to surf.
Kim: You don't see very many fat surfers.
Greg: It could happen!

Sports Bras

2011-01-25T21:56:00.003-06:00

Kim: :::Looking at sports bras online:::
Greg: I think we're being a little optimistic there.
Kim: It comes in small, ass!
Greg: Does it come in extra small?

Update:

That reminds me, someone on the radio this morning was talking about how the average bra size in American has supposedly gone up to 36DD. I was largely (no pun intended) skeptical about this claim. The research is coming from a lingerie company who is making the first "L" size bra. I think maybe their research is based on sales in their particular store.

I can't really find much scientific research on average bra size... just this particular article and also Wikipiedia says in the last 15 years the average bust size among North America women has increased from 34B to 36C, but then there's a few other sites and forums claiming the average is 34B.

Maybe I'm just being a stick in the mud & don't want to admit I'm on the wrong side of the bell curve... but I have to believe that 34B is actually closer to average because every time I go to Kohls, Target, Gap Body, etc... to buy a bra, I swear to you, they are always out of 34B in the one I want to buy.

Progress

2011-01-15T08:11:00.000-06:00

h/t Jezebel

New Years Resolutions

2011-01-02T09:16:00.000-06:00

Dallas Rock 'n' Roll Half Marathon - this WILL happen one way or another because I already paid the $80.00 registration fee + another $100 for a hotel. Joined Fitness Connection to get some treadmill runs in after work on weekdays and then I want to increase my distance runs on the weekends. Right now I can do 6-7 miles for a long run. I put 1:55 (about 9 min/ mile) as my estimated finishing time, but I actually hope I do better than that.

Gym - Since I joined I am now resolved to actually go and also do some cross training (weights). I actually just bought some free weights (3-10 lbs) to have at home too, so I really have no excuse

Chicago Marathon?! - this is dependent on a lot of things, number one being how I do in the Half. Also, registration being available (I think they're on a lottery system now) + of course the travel expenses.

Kentucky - Haven't been to my grandparents house since before Greg and I got married. And since my grandpa wasn't at the wedding (he's sick, long story) I have been feeling a little guilty lately about not making an effort to go see them. My grandpa's 80th birthday is in October so we are thinking of going out there for that. October also corresponds to when the Chicago marathon would be, so I'm guessing I might have to pick one or the other. I could also skip the Chicago Marathon and shoot for the Houston one next January, but I always told myself if I ever did a marathon, it would Chicago.

Vacation - Greg and I always spend our vacation time and funds visiting family. This is just a fact of life when you move across the country from your family. I told Greg when we got married that even if we were dirt poor, we would always find a way to see my family at least once a year, no exceptions. That being said, we haven't really been on a "real" vacation just the two of us since our honeymoon. We've done a couple semi local weekend stays in Austin & San Antonio (about a 3 hour drive from us) but I would really like to go somewhere not in Texas or Illinois, just us, maybe this spring or summer. Vegas or New York are our top two options right now. It depends on finances and where I can find a better deal. (I know New York is expensive; we have a friend in Jersey we can stay with & take the train in to the city - which would offset hotel costs)

Books - Couldn't quite make 30 for 2010, so that's the magic # for 2011 (baby steps). I looked over my Goodreads list of books I read in 2010 and am happy with my choices, and think there is a good range of topics. Despite my feminist tendencies I was pleased to see that almost exactly half of the books I've read were written by men. About 20% of the books I read were about topics directly related to feminism. I want to keep reading books about that topic because that's what interests me, and I'm not going to make apologies for it. That being said, I don't want to become so engrossed in it that I don't branch out and read about other topics as well. If there's anything I need to work on in regards to diversifying my book choices it would be reading books written by people of different ethnicity. I would have done much better with this if I had stayed in grad school... but c'est la vie.

Keeping in touch - Living apart from your family and friends is hard. I haven't been the best daughter/sister as far as being the one to call/write whatever, so I'm going to work on that. I'd like to keep in touch with friends too, but to be honest family is priority for me. That doesn't mean I want to sever relationships I had. It just means that life changes, people change, circumstances change, and with that you have to accept that things can't be the way they were. And if you have friends that accept that, are genuinely excited for you, and want the best for you, all the better. To quote a friend, "To old friends and new memories." Yes and Yes.

Cooking - Somehow I have got to get me and Greg out the mindset that frozen pizza and/or chicken nuggets are acceptable weekday dinners.

Patience - This one is pretty much all encompassing, but would mostly apply to my marriage. I love my husband so much. But marriage is hard, and it's something you have to work at. So far I haven't met any married people who would disagree with that.

Money - Some of the above goals require money. I feel like I was pretty good most of 2010 with saving and not using credit. It was a semi hard year financially because we had added expenses with regards to being homeowners (these go beyond taxes & property insurance) + we had to pay about $2500.00 in medical expenses due to having a high heath insurance deductible. Number one, I am glad that Greg is okay, and number 2, I know we are lucky to even have health insurance. That doesn't make it any less difficult to pay off unexpected expenses, but we did pay it off right in time for what I like to call the 4th quarter of insanity (ok, I made that up just now).

Starting in October we had: Ren Fest (tradition and super fun, but also semi expensive), my birthday, Thanksgiving vacation with Greg's family in Tennessee, Greg's birthday, about 5 people in Greg's immediate family with December birthdays, Chicago trip, + Christmas. Our anniversary is this week too (Jan 6th) and we are NOT doing gifts; we will be going out to dinner at an establishment that we received a gift card to. We made the choice to do all these things and celebrate occasions, so we don't have anyone to blame but ourselves but I think we need to scale things back next year (and spread out trips) in order to be more in line with our financial goals.

I think that's more than enough to get me started for 2011. Cheers & Happy New Year!

Credit Where Credit is Due

2010-12-22T18:59:00.000-06:00

I have written before about my contempt for Mike Huckabee, or at least for some his political positions, but I have to give the man some credit... because he called out Sarah Palin. For being an idiot, basically.

Maybe he didn't use the word idiot... but it was implied.

A few days ago Sarah Palin referenced Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign on her show "Sarah Palin's Alaska" by saying, "Where are the s'mores ingredients? This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert."

Anyone who can read and has done even the slightest bit of research about the "Let's Move" campaign knows it's not about taking desserts away from kids, but rather it promotes eating a balanced healthy diet and exercising in order to address the very real and very prevalent problem of childhood obesity. Promoting healthy eating and exercising is pretty much the most boring and uncontroversial thing ever...at least to sane people.

Anyways, props to Mike Huckabee for calling out Palin on her ridiculous implication that the First Lady is saying "the government should decide what your kids eat."

"Michelle Obama's not trying to tell people what to eat or not trying to force the government's desires on people," Huckabee said. "She's stating the obvious, that we do have an obesity problem in this country."

If you want to know more about the Let's Move campaign, Michelle Obama wrote a good article (pretty short, easy read) in Newsweek this year explaining why she started the campaign and what it's all about.

Taxes

2010-12-09T12:18:00.000-06:00

I was in favor of the tax compromise that Congress is working on until I read this.

If you are single and make less than $20,000.00 you will pay MORE in taxes under the proposed bill next year than you paid last year. Also, if you are married and jointly make less than $40,000.00 you will pay MORE.

Median income in the US is $50,000.00 so a lot of people (the working poor) are really going to be screwed by this.

I'm definitely not in the "only rich people should pay taxes" camp, but it just doesn't seem right that the only group of people taxes are going UP for is people barely making a living wage.

By the way, under the current proposal, I would benefit from the changes (which is why I was originally in favor of it)

Pissed Off

2010-11-17T21:50:00.002-06:00

I'm kinda pissed off about the new TSA security procedures. It's true that scanners detect things metal detectors can't but they can't detect everything. According to the Wall Street Journal, they can't detect items stored inside the body so cavity searches probably will be next..

I'm not super cool with naked images being taken either. Sure, they're viewed in separate room and TSA says images can't be stored. What they mean is they're not SUPPOSED to be stored. U.S. Marshals in a Florida Federal courthouse saved 35,000 images on their scanner So it is possible, and all it takes is one dumb agent who decides to save, store and distribute images of "hot chicks" or god forbid kids.

Speaking of kids, I think the argument can be made taking naked pictures regardless of whether the face is blurred amounts to child pornography.

The new "enhanced" patdown is even worse in my opinion. I couldn't find any official TSA guidelines to the enhanced patdown procedures but according to Time Magazine and the LA Times, agents can now use their fingers and palms to feel breasts, genitals and buttocks.

In the past, TSA screening officers used the back of their hands to brush past sensitive body parts, including the breasts, genitals and buttocks. Under the new technique begun a week ago, screening officers at airports across the country can use their fingers and palms to probe and feel around such areas for weapons and contraband hidden under clothing.

Due to complaints about children being groped by strangers (imagine that!) children 12 and under are now exempt from this, but 13-17 year olds are not. I don't have kids, but I can tell you right now there's no way in hell I'd let my teenage daughter or son for that matter be touched like that. I'm actually pretty nervous about flying for Christmas now because I'M not comfortable being touched like that. It's not just that I'm "uncomfortable" with it, I generally just don't feel like that's ok or acceptable. I don't feel like it's ok for ANYONE to touch me in those areas except for my husband or my doctor, and in the privacy of my own home or my doctor's office.

Speaking of my doctor's office... on to rant #2...

Why the hell can I not obtain birth control pills unless I have a pap smear?! Testing for cervical cancer is completely unrelated as to whether or not someone is a good candidate for birth control. Also the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has made formal recommendations that a pap smear is recommended every 2 to 3 years if you've had 3 normal ones in a row. I explained to my doctor that I've had SIX normal ones in a row and that I've read the recommendations, but nope, she wouldn't refill my prescription without it.

It's like their holding the pills hostage, and you know what... it's pretty damn patronizing if you ask me. This article in RH Reality makes some really good points about why this is ridiculous and why birth control should be made available over the counter for women 18 and up. Some highlights (all direct quotes):

Hormonal contraception meets the Federal Food & Drug Administration (FDA) standards for non-prescription status; consumers can easily identify contraindications, directions for use are uncomplicated, the benefits outweigh risks, and health providers are not necessarily required.

Though we often hear of a possible association between BCPs and strokes or heart attacks, those risks are much lower than the risk of suffering liver damage from over-the-counter acetaminophen. Aspirin and ibuprofen have even more safety risks, such as ulcers, bleeding, high blood pressure, and kidney disease.[3] Hormonal contraception has been proven safe—pregnancy is seven times more dangerous than pills, smoking is 50 times more dangerous than pills, driving is 12 times more dangerous than pills[4]—according to numerous respected medical organizations, including the World Health Organization, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Medical Association.

Daniel Grossman, Senior Associate Assistant Clinical Professor of Ibis Reproductive Health, cites a 2004 US national survey of women that reported 41 percent of women not using contraception said they would begin using the pill, patch, or vaginal ring if it were available without a prescription in a pharmacy. Another similar study found that travel away from home and running out of pill packs were common reasons women missed pills—a frequent cause of contraceptive failure.

Given the state of our current economy, many women are already struggling financially and medical procedures compound expenses. For others, time is an issue. Some women find themselves in need of a prescription refill and unable to visit a clinic or get an appointment with a doctor in time. For some women, the intrusiveness of the exams and test is enough to prevent them from seeking them

According to this logic, no one should be allowed any medications unless they have all recommended physical exams. Over 55 and haven’t had a colonoscopy? Sorry, no flu shot for you...How many men actually go for their annual prostrate exam? Let’s allow women, like all mentally competent adults, to make their own decisions regarding their bodies.

UGH!! Good thing I'm going on vacation soon... I need to de-stress :)

Theory, Yes; Practice, No

2010-11-12T20:51:00.004-06:00

To me, this 7 page NYT article on evangelical women can be summarized like so: Conservative evangelical women often believe in submitting to male authority and leadership in theory, but not in practice.

I don't mean to sound smug or sarcastic; that's honestly what I got out of it.

I find it interesting that the woman they profile (Priscilla Shirer) and her family practice the very feminist idea of sharing child rearing responsibilities and career responsibilities somewhat equally and in a non traditional way. She is a speaker/author, and her husband works by maintaining her schedule, taking calls etc. He often acts as primary caregiver when she's traveling.

Yet, Shirer is insistent that she's "not a feminist" or even a "career woman" but makes her living (presumably a pretty lucrative one) by advocating for the idea of biblical (male) headship. The article states:

Shirer and many conservative Christians believe that the Bible defines gender as a divinely ordained set of desires and duties inherent in each man and woman since the Garden of Eden.

I'm not clear, and neither is the article (IMO) as to what these "divinely ordained" set of desires and duties that are supposedly inherent in men and women actually ARE.

I also find it rather disappointing that she's quoted as describing feminist activists as people who tell women to “do your own thing, make your own decisions and never let a man slow you down" when in reality feminism and feminist activism is not about elevating women to a higher status than men or disregarding men or meaningful relationships with men, but rather making sure that women have an equal voice and equal opportunities in all areas of life. Like in ministry, for example. In fact, I'd argue that it's feminism and the progress that feminism has made over the last several decades that allows not only Priscilla Shirer to step outside the boundaries of what women were "supposed" to do, but also allows her husband to step outside of the traditional male roles and expectations.

It's kind of humorous to me that she is quoted as saying she defers to her husband when it comes to the BIG DECISIONS (emphasis mine)and then the example she gives is that her husband chose the name of their kid. I'm not saying a baby's name isn't important... but I'm pretty sure where the family lives and works, and how the family unit operates as a whole is more important, and in their case that's obviously guided by Priscilla's career as a speaker and author.

I honestly find the whole idea of "Biblical womanhood" kind of fascinating because it always seems to change or have caveats depending on who you ask. And it's not that I like to see infighting between churches or denominations, but it's so interesting to me that people whose mission it is to impact the Kingdom for Christ would spend a significant amount of time debating the role of women in leadership. I've read essays and excerpts from both sides of the egalitarian and complementarian views. More and more schools are allowing women into their pastoral programs, but there are still some holdouts. And of course the holdouts claim they are being true to the Bible, but then the other school ardently defend that THEY are being true to the Bible also.

When I was younger, I was taught to seek out answers by respected authorities when I had questions regarding theology. And I've tried to do that, not just recently but for quite some time now. I've come to realize though that I'm not really going to get answers, but rather more questions every time I try to seek out answers. And I honestly just don't know if any one person, or school, or church, or denomination, or even religion in general can claim to have THE TRUTH.

I didn't really mean to get off on that tangent; I had originally thought about just posting the link and maybe a sentence or two about it, but I think it's good to think these thing through and actually post something of substance (maybe...hopefully?) once in awhile.

Toothbrush

2010-11-09T18:58:00.003-06:00

Greg: Is my bag still in your car?
Me: All the stuff from Ren Fest is in my trunk.
Greg: I had to use your toothbrush today
Me: ugh, gross. Wait, we've been home for 3 days. What did you do on Monday
Greg: Used your toothbrush
Me: And Sunday...
Greg: And Sunday.
Me: Gross!
Greg: What's the difference? You kiss me with your tongue.
Me: It's just different!
Greg: I also used your deodorant.
Me: What?! Are you out of deodorant?
Greg: No, it was in the bag.

You Will Never Replace Me; I Know Microsoft Excel

2010-11-09T11:21:00.003-06:00

Is it sad that the highlight of my day so far has been that I figured out how to put a list of emails into Excel using Text to Columns and THEN transposed the row of emails into a column? That's some mad skills.

Also, I emailed my mom.

House

2010-10-23T16:33:00.003-05:00

Greg: If it were up to me, this house would look way cooler.
Me: What would it look like?
Greg: Well first of all we would have a Foosball table and posters everywhere. And I'd get rid of the dining room table and put in a pool table. It would look like a trendy New York city apartment, instead of what it looks like now.
Me: What does it look like now?
Greg: It looks like a house where two people are married and maybe thinking about having kids. That's so boring. I want people to walk into my house and think 'that guy gets laid every night.'
Me: Do you want to get a Foosball table?
Greg: No, that's silly.

Sunday Morning

2010-10-10T17:56:00.003-05:00

Greg: This is where I had my first kiss.
Me: Was she cute?
Greg: Why would I kiss an ugly chick?

Churchgoer: Is that where you guys are plugged in right now?
Greg: No, we're not really plugged in anywhere right now. We're going acoustic for awhile.

"Who gets to be a feminist?"

2010-10-07T22:56:00.003-05:00

"Who gets to be a feminist?"

Slate recently asked several feminist activists/writers to answer this question in 500 words or less. My writing skills and “feminist” background both in the academic and political sense are nowhere near on par with these ladies, but I thought I’d give it a go. For shits and giggles.

*When you try to answer the question “who gets to be a feminist?” that automatically implies that some people don’t get to be feminists. Frankly the idea of having a checklist or litmus test for who gets to be “in the club” really turns me off to the whole idea of labels like “feminist.” I feel this way about religion too. You could do this same exercise with a variety of religious scholars and influential leaders, asking the simple question “Who gets to be a Christian?” and you would get a similar variety of responses with conflicting answers in the same way that the answers to the question on feminism are conflicting.

Of course there’s the dictionary definition of feminism - the doctrine advocating social, political, economical and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Anyone who is not a sexist asshole is going to say they agree women should have rights equal to men. To most people today, women not being able to vote or own property seems like something from a crazy novel. You tell people that as recently as the 1970s women weren’t allowed to own their own credit cards or get birth control unless they were married and people will look at you like you just said the earth is flat.

But just because women have made great strides in the last 100 years doesn’t mean feminism is over or no longer necessary as many have declared. Sure, culturally, women have great influence and are all over the map. Forbes recently compiled a list of the Most Powerful Women that included Michelle Obama, Lady Gaga, and Beyonce Knowles in the top ten. I’m a fan of all these ladies! Also of Oprah Winfrey (3) and Ellen Degeneres (10) But when you look at who is in power in business and politics, the numbers are skewed less in the ladies’ favor. It’s strange to see a female CEO of a major conglomerate (PepsiCo) like Indray Nooyi (#6 on the Forbes list).

And the pushback I get on this is always, “well women need to realize they can’t have it all.” And by have it all they mean have a career and a family. But yet no one seems to question a man’s desire or ability to “have it all.” One thing I couldn’t help noticing on Forbes list is that in addition to the ladies’ age, title, and source of income, their marital status and number of children is listed. (To be fair this was pointed out to me – h/t Broadsheet). I don’t recall many top ten lists of successful business men including marital status and number of children.

I’m not going to say who does or doesn’t get to be a feminist, but to me someone who is working towards the stated goals of feminism (see dictionary definition above) is someone who is an advocate for women and also for men to be able to “have it all.” Both men and women should be able to raise families and pursue any vocational aspirations they may have.

I'm Yes, Then I'm No

2010-09-23T20:25:00.006-05:00

Attention Internet! I have something very important to write about: Katy Perry's cleavage. Specifically, Katy Perry's cleavage on Sesame Street.

Katy Perry was scheduled to be on Sesame Street in a skit with Elmo doing a kid friendly version of her song "Hot N Cold." It has already been taped and the clip can be viewed online at YouTube, but Sesame Street has decided not to air it on the show due to complaints about the singer's outfit and cleavage.

A Sesame Street spokesperson issued a statement:

Sesame Street has a long history of working with celebrities across all genres, including athletes, actors, musicians and artists. Sesame Street has always been written on two levels, for the child and adult. We use parodies and celebrity segments to interest adults in the show because we know that a child learns best when co-viewing with a parent or care-giver. We also value our viewer's opinions and particularly those of parents. In light of the feedback we've received on the Katy Perry music video which was released on You Tube only, we have decided we will not air the segment on the television broadcast of Sesame Street, which is aimed at preschoolers.

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, I think this is being blown way out of proportion. Think about it, Miss Piggy shows cleavage! (granted, not a sesame street character). Ariel, anyone?? Seriously, is cleavage really that bad?

It's so hard for me to say because I do defend the idea that young girls are being sexualized way too young and the media is a big part of that. But, I don't think young women should be ashamed of their bodies either. I don't think a young woman should be told (directly or indirectly) that she's a bad person for showing cleavage, or shoulder for that matter! (ah, memories) You could have the same dress on one girl with a B cup and another girl with a D cup and the girl with a D cup is going to be showing more cleavage. Does this make the girl with the larger breasts "slutty" or a "bad influence?" I tend to think behavior is more indicative of whether or not a person is a good or bad influence than clothing choice.

I don't totally blame parents for getting worked up about it considering the numerous things they have to worry about when it comes to their children. But I would argue that in this particular video I don't think her body is being put on display in the same way that it might be in, say, one of her music videos. So much depends on context. I think the skit with Elmo is cute and Katy Perry the singer/celebrity is dressed like Katy Perry the singer/celebrity. That's who Sesame Street invited on their show and that's what they got. They clearly didn't have a problem with her outfit until parents started complaining. They obviously told her beforehand, "hey we need to change your lyrics so they're appropriate for the show." They didn't say a word about her outfit though, so I kind of think that's their fault. They should know their audience, and maybe should've seen the backlash coming.

It's when we put forth the idea that you have to be "sexy" to be valued, that it's cause for alarm. I think Sesame Street is safe on that front. But I also think healthy body image is important too. It's hard because there's no set "line" when it comes to what women should look like in order to avoid being labeled as "too sexy." But I'm glad there isn't. I'm sure it would be a lot easier if we could say "well if there was 2 more inches of fabric on the bust and 1 more inch longer on the hemline it would be acceptable. But as it stands, she's a total skank." I'm glad I don't live in a world where women are either "whores" or "prudes." Oh wait, sometimes I do live in that world... but the point is that it shouldn't be like that!

Mike Huckabee is Right...

2010-09-18T11:04:00.004-05:00

... it DOESN'T make sense for insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions - from a business standpoint. Mike Huckabee was quoted as saying the following at the Value Voters Summit:

“It sounds so good, and it’s such a warm message to say we’re not gonna deny anyone from a preexisting condition,” Huckabee explained at the Value Voters Summit today. “Look, I think that sounds terrific, but I want to ask you something from a common sense perspective. Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, “I’d like to buy some insurance for my house.” He’d say, “Tell me about your house.” “Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I’d like to insure it today.” And he’ll say “I’m sorry, but we can’t insure it after it’s already burned.” Well, no preexisting conditions.”

I'm not against capitalism, I'm not a communist, I'm not a socialist (ok maybe a little bit of a socialist) but I don't believe healthcare for human beings should be a for profit business. That is why I believe in universal healthcare. Because human beings aren't houses or cars. That's just what I believe.

I got the Huckabee quote from an Alternet article and then read the same thing in Media Matters and a couple other liberal publications. I did a couple searches to see if I could find a more right leaning publication explaining why all the liberals are taking it out of context. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. And I'm not just going to take one quote from Media Matters and use it to say "this guy's a douchebag!" But, it's a whole paragraph, so not exactly a soundbite. And I really can't find anything from Fox or Wallstreet Journal on it. Closest thing might be Forbes blog, and it's not good for Huckabee.

It's unfortunate, because Mike Huckabee really does seem like a nice guy, smart too, and he doesn't SEEM like total crazy person. I even met him once and took a picture with him! So I do really find it disappointing that he's such a douchebag and is so callous as to not believe that someone born with an illness should be able to get medical treatment for it. Oh, and also he'd rather have kids in state run foster homes than be adopted by a gay family. Also, he supports banning birth control. Because if we make hormonal birth control illegal, it will totally reduce the number of abortions. I really just don't understand these types of positions. Maybe gay rights used to be considered a fringe issue but it's not anymore. And healthcare and birth control/reproductive rights are DEFINITELY not fringe issues considering they affect just about everyone! I really hope constituents start demanding common sense and decency from their representatives. I know I will be.

Life

2010-09-14T12:19:00.007-05:00

I hate when life gets in the way...basically I feel stupid, like a failure, sad, disappointed, etc.

I finally started to put a picture together of what I wanted to do with my life and it's never going to happen.

I guess I'll have to resign myself to the fact that I will spend my life, or at least 1/3rd of my life, staring at Excel spreadsheets, answering phones and doing other random bitch work around an office type setting. And I probably shouldn't complain about it either because I'm sure half the country would gladly do what I'm doing for a halfway decent salary. Or, at least 9.6 percent of the country, right?

I feel like I was lied to. Not by any one person but by multiple people and society in general. Maybe not intentionally. But still, we tell kids to go for their dreams, to do what they're passionate about and everything will be all right. Well guess what, that's not true. I probably shouldn't have kids because I will probably crush their dreams because I'm a realist, or at least I am now.

But hey, at least I tried right? Just like I tried grad school. For one whole semester. At least I finished one class though. I tried this for, oh, about 12 hours. I guess I should cut the vague crap... I've been volunteering at a women's center for the last year, just at their retail store. And then for reasons I won't go into, I got tired of doing that so I called up the volunteer coordinator and asked if there were other areas I could volunteer in. My options were either answer the hotline at the shelter or childcare at the shelter. Guess which one I chose... hotline, obviously. After doing that for a few hours once a week, I basically got offered a job there. I did have to interview for it, but it was pretty obvious I would get the job if I wanted it even before I walked into the interview.

Now, I should probably explain that this wasn't a full time position. It was a part time position and here's the kicker - they needed people for Thursday, Friday or Saturday nights. Obviously Thursday was out since I work on Friday and every other weekday. Friday was a maybe, but I didn't want to work 8 hours and then go work another 12 hours. Yes, I said 12 hours. The shift they were offering me was a 12 hour overnight shift.

When I heard this, I clearly should've said something along the lines of "well I'm flattered you thought of me, but working a 12 hour overnight shift in addition to my 40 hour workweek plus 10 hours of commuting to Houston probably isn't going to work out."

Did I say that? No. I said, "12 hour overnight shift? SURE!! I can do Saturday nights! Sounds Awesome." Or something along those lines... basically I told myself it would be no problem because I was so excited to maybe get some experience doing something actually meaningful. My thought process was something like "yeah, this will be great. I'll do it part time for a year, save up all that extra money. Then they'll probably offer me a full time position, and then I can do I job I love!!"

And after working one of these super awesome 12 hour overnight shifts my thought process shifted to "what the fuck was I thinking?!" and "why didn't someone (like my husband!) stop me!" Because he didn't want to crush my dreams, that's why. And, if he had tried that probably would've made me want to do it even more. That's just how I roll.

I am so stupid. First of all, I didn't stop to think how working 8pm Saturday - 8am Sunday would effect my WHOLE WEEKEND. Basically it was stay up super late Friday, sleep all day Saturday, go to work, sleep some on Sunday during the day, sleep Sunday night... and weekend's over. Second - not that money is the most important thing but money is kind of important to you know, pay bills. Definitely got a reality check when I found out full time people there make about $11.00/ hr. Can't pay my mortgage, car payment, and utilities on that! Which sucks because the people who do work there obviously work super hard. Just from what little I've observed it's nonstop and there's always some sort of crisis going on (you can imagine). Which brings me to my third point which is that even if scheduling and money were non factors, I don't even know if I can do this job!! I'd be responsible for up to 60 women and children and would have to handle any type of emergency, fight, conflict you name it. The people who work there are so underpaid it's not even funny.

Again, what was I thinking? So today I had to quit. After one shift. I feel like such a loser. I'm know it sounds like I'm feeling sorry for myself, and I am. But I'm really not trying to get pity, I swear (no one reads this anyway). I'm writing this because all these thoughts are jumbled up in my head and it's cathartic for me to put them down in a somewhat coherent fashion. But just in case someone is reading, I'm turning off comments. Again, I'm just basically writing this for me.

So that's my story of how I get super excited about things and don't think them through and have no idea what the fuck I want to do with my life.

Who is Ruining Christianity?

2010-08-29T18:43:00.002-05:00

A. Gay People
B. Catholics
C. Teenagers
D. Hipsters
E. All of the Above

If you are a member of the media, the correct answer is E. All of the Above.

This is probably the fifth article I've read in the last 30 days discussing who can or, more accurately, who can NOT be a Christian, and it is getting old fast.

And btw the articles I'm talking about have been in both liberal and conservative publications. My annoyance towards exclusion/judging knows no party lines.

No, I Do Not Have Kids.

2010-08-13T06:58:00.004-05:00

My friend at work who is the same age and gender as me were kind of joking yesterday about how when we get the inevitable "Do you have kids?" question from random people, we always respond with some sense of shame and regret. It's hard to get intonation across on a blog post, but it's something like, "oh... no... I don't." Maybe followed by a "not yet."

And we decided NO MORE. From now on, loud and proud "NO, I DON'T HAVE KIDS!" My friend is engaged so I warned her that these questions will increase ten fold when she gets married.

But I think I'm actually going to take this to heart, maybe not scream at people for asking... but I'm seriously going to try to respond with a polite but firm "No, I don't" with no sense of shame or regret. And if they ask, "Do you plan on having kids" and I feel that it's not this particular person's business (talking to you Level 3 account manager!) I will say "I'm not sure." Because that's the truth and even though business people are taught to make small talk some stuff is just not your fucking business.

As for the more complicated relationships of family and close friends I still feel the "I'm not sure" is an acceptable answer. And I might be willing to go a step further and explain my reasoning (but not DEFEND my reasoning; I'm not doing anything wrong!) But no more hanging my head and slouching in my seat when I hear, "But don't you want kids?" "Michael's baby is SOOOO CUTE." "You look good holding that baby." "Greg, you're pushing 30.. (they're too polite to say "Kim, you're pushing 30") I could go on. I know people have good intentions, but seriously don't people have their own shit to worry about?

END RANT.

Change is Possible

2010-08-08T08:28:00.006-05:00

We’ll have to get beyond the Mommy Wars and instead create rewarding career paths even for parents — fathers, too — who take months or years off. We’ll have to get more creative about part-time and flexible work, too.

I normally don't like the trend pieces of the New York times, but this one really hit home because it's something I've been thinking about a lot - the wage gap, having kids, returning to work, etc. Basically, women who work full time before having children make about as much as men working full time (all else being equal) but that gap drastically shifts after a woman has kids, even if she returns to work full time later. Often because she can't leave early, stay late, travel with last minute notice, etc. Over all, full-time female workers make a whopping 23 percent less on average than full-time male workers.

And often the argument is, well women want to stay home and don't want to work the late hours, which is sometimes true. But I don't think that's always the case. I think what women really want is to change the overall picture of what being a working mom (or dad) looks like. And like this article states, that includes both legal AND cultural changes. All the laws in the world won't make for a better work environment without cultural changes. And I think we're already starting to see the cultural changes with dads being more involved in parenting, and dads wanting flexible work schedules as well. Unfortunately I don't think we're to the point where men in general are likely to ask for paternity leave, flex time, etc. to take care of kids because it's still seen as "weak" and it's something that puts you at a significant disadvantage at work. I think as this continues to change, we'll look back and put this in the column of "feminism benefits men too."

What I find particularly interesting is the article quotes a university professor as saying, "American feminists made a conscious choice to emphasize equal rights and equal opportunities, but not to talk about policies that would address family responsibilities."

But when you look at who is actually advocating for policy changes, such as expanding family leave, creating flexible work schedules, providing health insurance for low income mothers and babies - it's American feminists. There's a huge presence online of women and mothers advocating for change - Moms Rising, RH Reality Check, plus pretty much all the major feminist blogs. And it's not just women with children either.

And you would think with all the ladies in politics that have been in the news lately (fourteen Republican women are running for U.S. Senate, and 94 are seeking House seats) this would be an enormous opportunity for change in regards to policies that affect women and mothers. But unfortunately, as Ann Friedman points out in the American Prospect, "the core narrative is fiscal, not cultural." These women strongly oppose government spending. "After watching enough of their ads and campaign speeches, you start to get the idea that, when they gaze into their children's eyes, all these mothers can think about is the deficit."

Where do these candidates stand on children's health insurance? On family-leave policies? On consumer product safety? On early childhood education? We can make some inferences based on their anti-government talking points, but their campaigns don't even touch on these issues. When they do weigh in, they offer opposition, not solutions. They're against "Obamacare." Against cap-and-trade. Against spending. The campaign website of Sharron Angle, the extreme right-wing challenger to Harry Reid in Nevada, was recently scrubbed of calls to completely abolish the Department of Education.

Yes, "mama grizzlies" (ugh I hate that term!!) are making noise. And yes, I'm glad we're seeing more women in politics. But as Ann points out "these women's very political careers are made possible by the flexible hours, health-care access, and other benefits that they do not want to extend to other mothers."

My mom was working a great paying job in downtown Chicago before she had kids. She decided to quit work because she didn't want her kids in day care. Once we were school age, she went back to work part time, closer to home and for much much less money. As we got older and were reasonably responsible enough to look after ourselves for a few hours after school, she went back to work full time. Again, for much much less money than when she was working in Chicago (with inflation taken into account). And I see myself kind of following that same path. Probably will have kids later in life if I have kids at all, probably won't want to put them in day care if we can help it. And I get a little sad because it's a full generation later and so much has changed but yet so little has changed at the same time.

I don't want to take time off and then go back to work five years later to make $10.00/ an hour part time and have my lifetime earnings drop that drastically because I had kids. And so that's why, even if I never have kids, I'll continue to voice my opinion and be an advocate for working mothers so that maybe I will see change in my lifetime. Maybe I'll see the new norm be that both parents work and share child rearing responsibilities somewhat equally. Honestly, I think that would make my mom proud.

And if you're skeptical that change is possible, I don't blame you but please think about this: For almost 200 years, the Supreme Court did not have a single woman on its bench. As of yesterday afternoon, it has three.

Food!

2010-07-31T08:43:00.004-05:00

I just ran some numbers on our checking account to see how much we were paying in food per month. I was hoping our July total number would be less than June since we've been into cooking at home more the last month. Much to my surprise it was only about $45.00 less.

It's interesting because we spent $88.00 LESS on fast food/eating at restaurants. However, our grocery bill seems to have INCREASED by by $43.00. It's hard to get an exact number though because I'm just going by whatever posted between 6/1-6/30 and 7/1-7/31. So I could've purchased groceries on May 27th but the transaction posted on June 1.

Also, a lot of times when I go to HEB (it's like the Jewel of Texas)I will purchase things not in the food category like household items. Toilet paper, paper towels, cat food, deodorant, etc. It's hard to figure out how much to deduct for that stuff because I don't have receipts.

Our June eating out bill (eating out including all meals - breakfast, lunch, and dinner plus drinks like Starbucks or Jamba Juice. We don't go that much but $7.00 a pop for both me and Greg adds up) was $278.28 and July was $189.88.

Groceries for June - $487.66. Groceries for July - $531.02. Again I think it's actually less because of how the transactions post plus the random household items we buy at the grocery store.

Maybe I'm defending these numbers because they seem high. They are definitely higher than I thought. You would think two people could eat for less than $700.00 a month! Hopefully actual numbers are more like around $600.00 but clearly there is room for improvement. I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one who is spending more on food than I think I am though.

Hopefully the cooking at home more will continue. I'm finding that as we're starting to repeat recipes it's getting cheaper because now we have the random spices/ingredients required. We've been buying a lot of spices lately for our recipes we've found online, and have built up a nice little collection. But we are open to new recipes for sure! Any good recipes on the easy to medium difficulty level? Leave em' in the comments! And happy eating! :)

Greg is Not All Right

2010-07-30T22:41:00.005-05:00

UPDATE: Greg made me buy a posterboard so that he could graphically illustrate in his words "the historical shittiness of your movie choices."

I think this graph is a little unfair, if not amusing. I tend to like indie movies that aren't necessarily happy movies (Greg calls them depressing, which sometimes they are). I normally like the movies Greg picks except for the "titties and explosions" type movies. i.e. Angelina Jolie movies where she shoots guns for most of the movie with interludes of her naked. I guess there is a history of Greg not liking my movie choices but I don't think they're that bad!!

So tonight was movie night and I realized that the last 4 movies we've seen have been Greg's choice. The original plan for tonight was to see Dinner for Schmucks, but upon further reflection I realized that looks kinda dumb and I didn't really want to see that.

And actually, I really have been wanting to see The Kids Are All Right. It's an indie movie, about two lesbians and their teenage children who seek out their sperm donor dad and form a relationship with him. As you can imagine, this took some convincing on my part to get Greg to agree to this. I may have guilted him into it. Here is our conversation upon entering the theater.

Greg: I predict either empty or all old people and lesbians.

:::we walk in it's about 20% full and mostly old people:::

Greg: Told You!
Kim: There's some young people.
Greg: Where?
Kim: Those two blond girls
Greg: LESBIANS!
Kim: shhh.... you don't know!

:::5 minutes later::::

Kim: who are you texting
Greg: no one
Kim: let me see... "I'm about to see the shittiest movie ever. Don't get married." Real nice, Greg.
Greg: I should be playing Starcraft.

Verdict: I liked it but it wasn't the best movie ever. It was no Little Miss Sunshine. There was some unexpected nudity both male and female which added to Greg's torture. Greg hated it, of course. But, he's a trooper :)

Snowball

2010-07-23T20:46:00.003-05:00

In an effort to pay down debt, I have deleted a folder in my favorites called "Renaissance Dresses" in which I have bookmarked custom dresses for the Renaissance Festival that run about $200.00.

I don't need a $200.00 costume to have fun at Ren Fest. I just need beer. :)

Also, I should probably not plan trips for Austin or New York... even though I really want to go to Austin to watch roller derby and Greg and I are dying to go to New York. And Vegas...

And, I should not be jealous of other people's phones...

Ugh, I know we're not poor but sometimes it feels like it!! :( Anyways, trying to do the debt snowball that Dave Ramsey advocates. Live like no one else so later you can live like no one else?

Sarah Palin Makes Bill O'Reilly look Sane

2010-07-14T07:00:00.003-05:00

h/t Jezebel

Damn you, Bill O'Reilly for making me like you by making Sarah Palin look insane! Not that she needs much help.

"I'm getting very, very afraid of Mama Grizzlies."   LOL

Dilbert

2010-07-13T10:08:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I feel like I'm trapped in a real life Dilbert cartoon...

30 minute procedure - 8 claims

2010-07-04T10:01:00.003-05:00

For anyone who's pissed about the new health insurance laws, I'd like to talk briefly about my experience filing a claim(s) for what basically amounted to a 30 minute surgical procedure (for Greg).

For this one procedure, including the doctor's office visits beforehand, blood work, etc. there are currently 8 claims on my insurance file. EIGHT. This was a relatively minor procedure, not to minimize any stress that either of us felt going in (especially Greg) but if you have to have surgery this is the kind you want to have - outpatient; checked in at 7, checked out by 11.

So I'm wondering how much time and money was spent simply on the administration of these claims. There was the first doctor's office visit copay, then he got referred to the surgeon, so there was that copay. There was a claim for them to do the blood work pre-surgery, a claim to analyze the blood work, a claim for the actual surgeon's fee, the anesthesiology, the pathology claim for them to look at the lipoma (what Greg had removed, a benign tumor but he needed it removed because it was pressing up against nerves and causing him pain), and then the claim for the surgery center which apparently pays for nurses, equipment and facilities (this was the most expensive claim).

It's like you need a freakin PhD to figure this stuff out. And as frustrated as I am that we have a $3,000.00 deductible (that's what happens when you work for a company that has 18 people) I just calculated that if we didn't have health insurance this 30 minute procedure would've cost us over $13,000.00 which would've literally wiped out our savings. I mean, heaven forbid one of us needed to be in the hospital for something serious or for more than 3 hours and we didn't have insurance, we'd not only lose savings but be put into bankruptcy immediately.

I don't know what's going to happen in 2014. Maybe there will be riots, maybe the whole Health Insurance Reform Act will get reversed if Obama doesn't get a second term, but I seriously hope that doesn't happen. I don't think that protecting people from bankruptcy over something that's for the most part beyond their control (their health) is such a bad thing.

Yes, THIS

2010-06-24T19:09:00.006-05:00

Ask and ye shall receive. An article from RH Reality Check detailing just how difficult it is for women to get family leave to have a baby.

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires that businesses with fifty or more employees provide up to 12 weeks of "job protected, unpaid leave" to employees who have worked for at least twelve months minimum for said employer.

For businesses with less than 50 employees, there are no federal mandates of any kind. As the article states, in this case, "Employees do not need to be given leave to care for a sick child, after the birth of a child, to care for a sick or dying parent; they don't even need to be given a minimum number of paid sick days."

I know there are some women who are able to work right up until their water breaks, and we all hear the stories of women giving birth and then getting on their laptops an hour later while still lying in the hospital bed. But just because *some* women are able to do this, doesn't mean this is ideal or even possible for the majority of women. In fact, I'm willing to go so far as to say that if you DO think all women should and are able to work right up until their water breaks and should be able to get back to work no sweat... then you are being classist.

Women who are able to do this (and hey, good for them) are usually high level female managers,executives, or politicians.

Do you think most women who work retail or in the service industry can work on their feet for 40 hours a week, drive to work and back every day during the last few weeks of pregnancy? Oh, and how much time are employers willing to give off for all the prenatal appointments required?

I've never been pregnant but here is what I know: being pregnant is extremely hard on your body. Your body changes in every single way possible - it's a whole lot more than "aw, my stomach is getting bigger!" and these changes are not comfortable in any way whatsoever and would probably make working on your feet for long periods of time very very miserable or next to impossible.

This is all BEFORE the baby is born. Women need time to establish a breast feeding relationship with their baby. And from what I hear, babies need to nurse what, every three hours?? (If anyone who has been pregnant before is reading this & I'm saying anything wrong, please feel free to correct me). Yet having to go back to work 2 days after giving birth would make this kind of hard. No, not everyone chooses breast feeding but a multitude of studies have shown that in most cases this is best for both baby and mom (unless the mom can't breastfeed for some reason). Yes, I know you can pump too. But women who are "on the clock" often face hostile employers who don't allow breaks for this. Plus I heard it hurts like hell to pump especially if you have small breasts (YIKES!).

Also, as I've said before in another post, most day cares don't accept infants until they are six weeks old, so where is that six weeks of time off going to come from if you haven't worked full time at a company with 50 or more employees for at least 12 months?

I have also heard that some recovery time is often needed when women pass a 5-10 pound human through the birth canal (Shocking!) And if a woman has had a C section - which is almost 1 in 3 women here in the US - I've heard it can take up to 6 weeks for the body to heal and recover. All the more reason why maternity leave is desperately needed.

According to the Washington Post, "One hundred and seventy-seven nations -- including Djibouti, Haiti and Afghanistan -- have laws on the books requiring that all women, and in some cases men, receive both income and job-protected time off after the birth of a child." Women who get paid leave here in the US are rare. Women who get unpaid leave are lucky. But with this economy, who can even afford to take 12 weeks unpaid leave??

I don't think you have to identify as feminist to think that something is wrong when many, many other industrialized nations give women (and men!) paid family leave and women here are lucky to get unpaid leave, if they get leave at all. Especially when 80% of American women give birth by the time they're 40.

I'm excited for female politicians being able to influence policy regarding this, no matter what side of the aisle they're on. However, it's my hope that the conservative women who have been in the news lately support the policies that help women.

"Lawyer, blogger and suburban city council member in Northeast Ohio, Jill Zimon, calls this case "critical" and " a "real test" for conservative, female political candidates around the country"

"It's exactly these kinds of cases that right-of-center female political candidates must address and come down on the side of the pregnant worker if they want to be seen as women who support women. If [Meg] Whitman, [Nikki] Haley et al cannot express outrage at such decisions, then they absolutely do not deserve the support of women who are genuinely interested in having more women in political office."

If you read this blog, then you probably have figured out by now that I don't agree with fighting for legislation that would make abortion illegal and force women to give childbirth against their will. I'm not tagging this post as abortion though because that's not what this post is about. However, I do want to add that if you ARE fighting for that legislation, I would hope that you are also a strong supporter of policies like expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act that help women to have children AND be able to care for them and financially support them.

Dear Internet,

2010-06-21T06:50:00.003-05:00

I would like to read LESS articles on feminism as it relates to the following: Lady Gaga, Sarah Palin, "hook-up culture", Miley Cyrus.

I would like to read MORE articles on feminism as it relates to the following: work-life balance (and the legislation needed to improve it), international women's rights, reproductive rights (there's a fair amount of coverage on this one, but I'd like to see less pro-abortion/anti-abortion viewpoints, and more on birth control education and accessibility - and more language about how birth control is an essential component of health care as opposed to a separate aside or merely a convenience).

Please make that happen.

Love,

Kim

Fireproof

2010-06-07T22:41:00.006-05:00

Greg: Are you watching the God channel? (TBN)
Me: Nooo...
Greg: Are you watching Fireproof?
Me: Nooo...

I was totally watching Fireproof. Here's the thing about Fireproof - a bunch of our relatives tried to get us to watch it when it first came out. We took one look at the previews, saw Kirk Cameron was in it, and immediately decided we were way too cool for that. I mean, we do have movie standards to uphold.

Backing up for a second, Fireproof is a movie that was produced by a church in Georgia that is about marriage, but also presents a gospel message. Also, it stars Kirk Cameroon, better known as Mike Seaver from Growing Pains. It was released briefly in theaters (didn't do very well) but also had success in church screenings. It's probably well known in most Christian circles.

Last night, I watched it. I maybe missed the first 5 minutes but I saw the rest of it all the way through. Here's my synopsis: (SPOILER ALERT!)

30 something couple with great careers (fire dept. captain & PR manager at a hospital) and big house in McSuburb, Somewhere are Having Problems. They aren't in love any more and want to get divorced. There's a big fight scene where you think Kirk Cameron is going to slap his wife, but he really just yells stuff about respect. (It's a Christian movie so there's no swearing) Wife wants out, husband wants out. KC talks to his parents, mostly his Dad who challenges him with The Love Dare. The Love Dare is basically be nice to your wife, and don't be an Asshole for 40 days. There's different little gestures you're supposed to do each day. Also, each day has a Bible verse.

KC tries the Love Dare, and the first 20 days are TERRIBLE. Wife rejects all gestures and also flirts with McSteamy at her hospital (Christian movie, so no kissing or consummating - just flirting). KC is about to give up, and says to his dad "why should I love someone who rejects me." This conversation is taking place in front of a giant 50 foot cross. :::Camera cues to giant 50 foot cross:::

KC: This isn't about religion; that's not what I'm doing!
KC's Dad: Isn't it?

And then it happens. All of a sudden KC realized why his marriage is so crappy. He doesn't have JESUS. KC accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior and now his heart is REALLY in the love dare (first 20 days he was just going through the motions).

There are some firefighting scenes: KC is a hero. His second in command is a Christian too. KC and his lieutenant bond when KC says "I'M IN." There are some comedy scene with newbie firefighters, and we're back to the wife.

Wife find the Love Dare book and is still skeptical, but slowly comes around. We're not entirely sure she's going to come around until the big moment when she realizes that KC spent his boat fund (24K!!) on needed wheel chairs and health equipment for her ailing mom. KC's wife (I think her name was Katherine) - ok, Katherine has the revelation that she wants to save the marriage too, and also wants "what he has" (HINT - Rhymes with Jeebus). What I found most amusing was after her Epiphany she doesn't run over to the firestation to reclaim her love. No, she starts putting on lipstick and styling her hair and puts on a fire engine red dress (get it?!) to prepare for the big speech in which she decides she wants to save the marriage too. Also, "SHE'S IN."

Confession - despite the cheesiness and despite my sarcasm... I kinda liked Fireproof. Also, I cried at the end. Like, a lot. Even while wondering why wife felt the need to get dolled up before telling her husband she doesn't want a divorce.

Here's the thing. I like the concept of the Love Dare. I'm all for the idea of being the change you want to see in your spouse. Like, if you don't want him to be a selfish jerk, then you should probably refrain from being a selfish jerk also. And you should love even when it's hard. All good things. What I didn't like though is that the movie seemed to be giving the idea that their marriage was bad because they didn't have Jesus, and then they found Jesus, and everything was ALL BETTER. I just don't think that the common denominator between all good marriages is Jesus, or that the common denominator between bad marriages is NOT having Jesus. Also, Christians have divorce rates just as high as non believers. Plus, there are people of other faiths or people of no particular faith who have great marriages.

I know it's kind of dumb to say "well I liked the message on marriage but I could've done without the Jesus stuff" because that was clearly the point of the movie. It was meant to evangelize, and that's fine.

Greg did not watch the movie with me; I'm pretty sure he was preoccupied with Starcraft. He did kind of chuckle when I told him I watched it. The next day I did something nice for him (made him a sandwich, even though I was pissed he slept in till 3:30pm due to staying up till 6am playing Starcraft). He said thanks, and I said "no problem babe. After all, it is what Kirk Cameron would do."

Wage Gap in the Woodlands

2010-05-27T20:49:00.003-05:00

Found some interesting stats on employment in The Woodlands, TX...

Median salary for all males working full-time $80,905
Median salary for all females working full-time $42,116

AWESOME. (Also, where are these $80,000 jobs and why the hell does Greg not have one??)

UGH!!

Kim's Fantasy Land in which Beer Commercials are Actually Marketed to Women

2010-05-23T21:48:00.003-05:00

Women account for 25 percent of the beer market, and probably more than that for lighter beers and ales. Women between the ages of 21 and 30 are drinking more beer than women in any other age group. So wouldn’t it make sense for advertisers to cater to this market?

When I think of Dos XX, I of course think of “The Most Interesting Man in the World.” He is suave, cool, and sophisticated. He can do or be anything. Police often question him, just because they find him interesting. His personality is so magnetic, he is unable to carry credit cards. You get the idea.

Dos XX in particular is a perfect beer to bring in a larger female market. Its lager brand is very popular and is in some ways a more “female” beer because it’s lighter and often “fruited” (you order one at a bar and it almost always comes with a lime). Yet it’s not some lame 27 calorie light beer that tastes like water. It actually tastes good, and I know of a few women my age who like it. But I also know lots of guys who like it too, which puts it in a perfect marketing position to gain more females in the market share without losing the males. A lot of times if a beer gets a reputation as a “chick” beer, guys will stay away. It’s why you don’t see too many guys drinking Michelob Ultra or Smirnoff.

I had a conversation with my coworkers about creating a “Most Interesting Woman in the World.” I was kind of joking, but I think maybe it could work. That being said, it would need to be done very carefully. This potential character should in no way replace The Most Interesting Man in the World but rather complement him. (I’m not a fan of this line of thinking in real life, i.e. women are meant to complement men, but this is purely from a marketing perspective)

I think the Most Interesting Woman in the World would need to be slightly older than the 21-30 age group, but not too old. Ideally, she’d be around 40 but look 32. (Again, looking at this from a marketing perspective, not saying this is what the “ideal” woman is in real life). She would be hot, yes. But she would also be sophisticated. Definitely not slutty. She would probably wear a short classic black cocktail dress, showing some cleavage but not too much. She would probably be a brunette with long hair (sorry but blond tends to equal dumb in ordinary beer commercials, and Dos XX is no ordinary beer).

If I was doing the commercial to introduce The Most Interesting Woman in the World, I’d probably start with the Most Interesting Man in the World, so you think it’s a normal Dos XX commercial. Maybe one of his lines would include how he gets all the ladies, and he would be in a bar surrounded by blonds in revealing outfits (none of them would be wearing black). But then she would walk in. And her line would have to be really good. Can’t be something super girly or overly feminine. We don’t want to hear “she gets weekly mani pedis daily.” No. The narration would be something like “when she gets pulled over, police officers write themselves a ticket.”

She would lock eyes with The Most Interesting Man. He would be slightly annoyed, but very intrigued. She would keep her eyes on him and simply say, “I don’t always drink beer, but when I do I prefer Dos XX.” This would prompt a devilish grin from the Most Interesting Man stepping away from the posse of dumb girls and taking a step forward towards the Most Interesting Woman while the other girls look on in disgust. END SCENE.

Miss USA

2010-05-17T21:26:00.007-05:00

I watched the Miss USA pageant last night....(chalk it up to taking a break from feminism?) The winner ended up being from Michigan. Rima Fakih is a Lebanese immigrant and is only the second Arab American to ever win the Miss USA pageant.

Not even 24 hours after being crowned, controversy is stirring. There are the usual suspects (naughty pictures, risque behavior a la a stripping contest for a radio show)and some not so usual controversy such as having ties to terrorist organizations

But that's not really what I want to talk about. I'm more interested in two other things.

1. Why do we still have beauty pageants in the first place? It's freakin' 2010!
2. Why are these women allowed to give dumb or incomplete answers to the "interview portion" in these pageants?

There were 3 portions of the competition in this show - swimwear, evening gown, and "interview" (which should really just be called "question"). Two out of the three of these involve nothing more than walking down the stage in something pretty and/or revealing.

As I was watching the swimsuit competition, I realized that right after the girl would walk down and do her stances or whatever, an average score would pop on the screen. So I would watch this girl walk down in a bikini, do a little twirl, smile at the judges, and then...8.65, and again, 9.12, and again, 8.46. And I thought, what exactly is being judged here?

Luckily I had expert crypt keeper and crypt keeper jr.* to explain it to me. They were judging "confidence" and "poise." OH. OF COURSE. No doubt these girls were confident and no doubt they had poise. But there are plenty of women out there willing to confidently strut their stuff and can do so with "poise" (not me, I'd probably make a retarded face and fall on my ass). But you know, no one is inviting the 5'4" 135 pound woman (perfectly healthy by BMI standards) to compete in this thing. There's obviously something else at play here. Just admit you're judging them based on their looks. The judges aren't even real judges. I'm not saying you need a PhD. to judge beauty pageants, but lets see... Oscar from the Office, Paula Dean, Johnny Weir the figure skater... these are just random celebrities judging the perceived hotness of the girls. If we're being honest, that's what it is.

I guess in the evening gown portion you can give some originality points because the girls choose their own gowns and then you hear a brief clip of them describing how their particular gown makes them feel like a mermaid and/or princess. It's kinda boring, actually.

And then there is the question portion. We all know what happened last year in the question and answer portion (see Carrie Prejean). This year we were treated to answers that were just as dumb. I actually thought Michigan had the dumbest answer to the easiest question. She was asked "Do you think health insurance should cover birth control and why" She answered, "I believe that birth control is just like every other medication even though it’s a controlled substance." At one point in her answer she said "birth control is expensive" and then at another point she said "you can get them for free in your OBGYN office." She was just all over the place.

Miss Oklahoma, the runner up didn't do much better in my opinion though all the right wing news sites are saying she's this year's Carrie Prejean who got robbed because of her conservative opinion. She was asked about the Arizona immigration law and said "I'm a firm believer in states rights (ok, fine) so I think it's perfectly fine for Arizona to do this. I'm against illegal immigration but I'm also against racial profiling so I can see both sides of this issue." WHO ISN'T? You could do that with any question. "well I can see both sides" Yes, intelligent people look at both sides of an issue, but at some point you have to take a stand. And supposedly Miss USA is about taking a stand for something, right? Maybe her answer wasn't terrible, and if I'm being honest her answer was better than the girl from Michigan (maybe Michigan had bigger boobs, I can't remember) BUT STILL. A twelve year old could've given that answer.

So it's 2010 and we still have beauty pageants where women are paraded around in swimsuits. Oh also lingerie photos were taken of each contestant before the show, which were described by everyone involved in the competition as "classy" and "beautiful" And then said pictures were posted all over the internet. I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ENCOURAGING YOUNG GIRLS TO NOT POST HALF NAKED PICTURES OF THEMSELVES ALL OVER THE F***ING INTERNET. I guess I was wrong. I guess that's a super awesome message for young women today.

I don't have a problem with swimsuits or lingerie, or even with acknowledging conventional beauty (though I think unconventional beauty should also be acknowledged) but I have a problem with this whole facade of competitions like these being about self esteem, and confidence, and poise, and intelligence when it's clearly not. And yes, I know... I watched it. And I probably shouldn't have because shows like this wouldn't exist if people didn't watch (ratings have been slipping, probably why they did the lingerie shoot beforehand) but what can I say, I'm a pop culture enthusiast and it was good blog fodder. :)

*That would be Joan and Melissa Rivers for you non pop culture enthusiasts.

Switching Gears

2010-05-16T11:39:00.004-05:00

I think I need a break from feminism. I just saw on ad on my Facebook that said "IT Project Man" and thought, "geez that's kinda sexist. Like only men can do IT Projects... oh wait, that's short for IT Project Management..." Yeah.

So maybe it's time to switch gears and do some reading on some non controversial subjects, like religion :)

I've been meaning to read Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity so I can become even more of a heathen in the eyes of my in-laws. Also I want to try out my Kindle that I got for free (woot).

It's time like these where I sometimes wish I was a "normal" girl and liked Nicholas Sparks books and Twilight...but that would be boring :)

Ah, Technology...

2010-05-03T21:50:00.004-05:00

...we can get information with the click of a button! We can take pictures with our phones! We can eliminate commercials with our DVRs! And now... we can hook up our vibrators to our iPods. Yep!

LOL - For the record, I did not do a Google search for "vibrating panties - iPod" The article, Fox on Sex: The Allure of Vibrating Panties was on the FRONT PAGE of Google NEWS. From FOX NEWS. I mean, I've made fun of Fox News in my day... but wow. Maybe it wouldn't surprise me if I was reading this in Cosmo or something, but society is in a pretty sad state if this is considered news.

Well, I guess being able to hook a vibrator up to an iPod IS pretty impressive. I had to read the line twice, to make sure I wasn't reading it wrong. But there it was in black and white:

First I tried the pulse mode, which responds to whatever ambient noise it “hears.” Let’s just say you can have some very interesting experiences in a loud club or a busy city street! I also hooked the thing up to my iPod

Man, I gotta get me one of those! An iPod, I mean! I'm way behind the times.

Bitches Aint Shit!

2010-04-26T21:22:00.009-05:00

UPDATE: Anyone from "Manhood Academy" who wishes to comment on this post should be aware that I have decided to institute a 3 "cunts" and your comment gets deleted policy. (not kidding, I actually got a comment that said that three times. It's called a thesaurus, people! Seriously, at least be creative in your insults.)

I've been wanting to write a post on the fluidity of gender, specifically on how gender roles in society have changed and are continuing to change. Some consider modern gender roles or lack thereof to be detrimental to society and to cause "confusion" and "emasculation" of males. And so my post was going to be on how men and women have had to adjust to changing gender roles over the last few decades, how women are often as confused as men as to what it means to "be a woman" or to "be a man."

But instead the majority of this post will probably be dedicated to discussing Manhood Academy and their "Principles 101: Feminism, Manhood, and You" "book." This website and this book are 100% serious and their mission is for colleges to teach "Male Studies" in the same way that some offer "Women's Studies." There's been a lot of intelligent response from the feminist community as to why this is a dumb idea (it already exists, it's proponents are often misogynist, males studies proponents generally reject women's studies as a concept, so how can they create the same concept for men, etc..)

And to that I would add, I seriously don't remember learning about very many specific women in history classes, and when I did it was an anomaly. Like after 27 male figures, Hey! Betsy Ross sewed the American flag! Abigail Adams was a LADY! Married to John Adams! And same with literature, after 12 or so male poets: Oh yes, Emily Dickinson! She wrote poems too! Kinda crazy, she was after all a WOMAN at the time! I mean, I'm not trying to say that we should change "History" to "Herstory" or anything like that, but you know, there's a reason why Women's Studies and "African American Studies" were created. It should be obvious, but I'll go ahead and state it: Women and minorities (one could conceivably be both btw!!) are under represented in traditional academia.

Now that the semi intelligent part of the post is over, let's get to the fun stuff, shall we? There is SO MUCH to cover! Class, please turn your books to chapter 1 in Principles 101: Feminism, Manhood, and You. First, we shall identify "the problem" FEMINISM. Feminism has given women the crazy idea that they should have rights and autonomy. This is dangerous for women because:

Women lack foresight for the same reason children lack it;they focus on themselves to a dysfunctional degree. Without male guidance, women neglect to consider the viewpoint of others.

As a result, women, in relation to men, lack the capacity to bear heavy responsibilities. Yet, because of Feminism’s reckless encouragement, they happily volunteer to “steer” the lives of others, oblivious to the dangerous situations they create; our Feminist society lowers academic, professional and civil service standards to accommodate women’s irresponsible desire to accept duties they were never designed to fulfill. Consequently,our schools, our economy and our lives must all sit in the passenger seat, waiting for the inevitable crash.

Last I heard the "crash" has already happened, largely in part to a mostly male run Wall Street and banking system... but that's neither here nor there. We know what women AREN'T supposed to be doing (going to college or having jobs, CLEARLY) so what ARE we supposed to be doing?

#1 Submitting to our husband's authority (women who don't have husbands aren't real women)
#2 Not being bitches.

Well, how do I not be a bitch?! GLAD YOU ASKED. If you exhibit any of the following characteristics, you may in fact, be a bitch (and we all know bitches ain't shit!)

• Anger towards men
• Use of insulting language
• A stubborn will
• A tendency to make demands
• A narcissistic attitude
• An argumentative disposition

According to Manhood Academy, "Examining the relationship of these aspects reveals a common pattern of dysfunctional behavior typified by women deprived of male authority." (see #1 above!)

So, any "demands" (like, hey, you should treat me with respect and as an equal partner in this relationship!) - BITCH. Not gonna give in during an argument (like, no I will not buy a stick shift car because I don't know how to drive stick, and have no desire to learn because soon they will be antiquated) - BITCH (ok, that one might just be me, but feel free to insert your own personal argument here*!) Since I am also angry at these men for what they are saying (yet also amused!) that gives me extra Bitch points, but these men being angry at women they deem bitches is totally justified, of course.

*In all seriousness, there have been many "arguments" in which we have either compromised or did what Greg wanted to do. I am in no way advocating that women should always get their way or are always right in an argument. That being said, not backing down occasionally doesn't make you a bitch (IMO)

More fun: Manhood Academy says women shouldn't vote. Allowing women to vote is no different than allowing children to govern themselves. Feminism allows irresponsible changes to corrupt the governing structure

Just as men lack the capacity to bear children, women simply aren’t qualified to properly care for their own needs. Their design prohibits this, not an imagined glass ceiling or any other misogynistic ploy to exploit women as Feminism assumes.

OH. I guess we can add a #3 for what women ARE supposed to be doing (and add voting to the list of dont's!) - HAVING BABIES. Um..I just had a thought. Shocking I know - I am a WOMAN after all!! So... if I, a woman, am not qualified to take care of my own needs as a grown woman, how on earth would I then be qualified enough to be entrusted WITH AN INFANT and take care of his or her needs?? This perplexes my feeble lady brain.

Moving on..there are SPECIFIC personality characteristics that are inherent to women and men respectively. And any overlapping and reversing of these characteristics will cause the destruction of planet Earth.

Women: nurturing, supporting, comforting
Men: disciplining, planning, and leading

Through Feminism’s blind quest for “gender equality,” women have been deceived into hating their natural function and coveting male functions

Bah, Feminism!! You have made me hate all that is nurturing, supporting, and comforting!! Even though I nurtured, supported and comforted my husband all weekend after his surgery... it is all for naught! Because you, feminism, have made me hate men, and God, and puppies, and apple pie, and all that is good in this world!! (not kittens though. Feminists like cats, so kittens are ok)

There is a lot more, but I think that's enough sarcasm for one night. Even though there is so much more to go through. I have to say though, some of the illustrations on this "Principles 101" pdf are FUCKING HILARIOUS. I especially enjoyed the ones of pages 27: Trading Material Things for Ass = Good; Trading Material Things for Nothing = BAD and 65: Manginas and Bitches are bad.

I'm not gonna lie, that was fun. And if you read that whole, post, kudos to you! But can I be serious again? So, I honestly don't know how seriously people are taking this Manhood Academy site, but I do know that there are groups serious about Men's Rights and offering Male Studies, and while I don't necessarily agree with them, I'm open to intelligent debate on the subject. But when key members from malestudies.org who are advocating a Male Studies curriculum are actually soliciting advice from the people behind "Manhood Academy" I kind of lose hope for humanity. You can't read that shit that they write, and then truly believe that they or anyone who supports them should be responsible for creating academic programs that are supposed to make our society a better place to live in.

The world is changing, gender roles are changing. Some couples abide by traditional gender roles and that's ok. Some couples do in some circumstances but not all. Hell, I do the laundry, Greg mows the lawn. I was doing the laundry anyways before we moved into the house so "I'll do the laundry if you mow the lawn" seemed like a good deal to me! But also, I pay the bills and generally am the one who knows how much money we have at any given time (not a lot!) and Greg cooks a lot of the times. Because he is good at cooking and that's ok too. It's actually great, for me!

So, you're a guy and you're not sure how chivalry works in this "new and strange society." My personal take - chivalry is not necessary, manners are. That being said, I don't scowl if a guy opens a door for me. I don't scowl if he doesn't open it for me either. As long as you don't slam the door in my face, I am pretty much ok with however you feel like opening the door! And I will always say thank you! And if I don't, I apologize. Maybe I was in a hurry. For real though I always try to say thank you.

You're confused on what it means to "be a real man." You get mixed messages from society. You hear that a real man takes care of his family. But then you also hear that a real man doesn't give a shit on what his bitch has to say. You can't cry, or have feelings, and you especially can't talk about them. You were taught that men should pay for dates, but now women sometimes want to pay for dates. It is so confusing!!

You know what, get the fuck over it. Women get mixed messages every day and we are navigating change the same way that you are. But we're doing it backwards and in high heels!! No, but for REAL - women are the ones juggling the family and career, trying to always maintain the perfect balance between sexy and slutty, between confident and "bitchy", between professional but also feminine (funny how I never see any ads for men's business clothes: Professional, but also masculine. No, because it is already implied in the "professional." )

Seriously, get over it. Men are not being "emasculated" just because gender roles are now more fluid. I don't even know what people mean when they say "act like a man!" Really, which man? There are many of them to choose from. And they do not all act the same! Some of them are jerks, and some are really awesome. Same goes for women. Or, "oh, she is acting like a man." Because why? Because she is making money, or making decisions, or being aggressive/competitive? It's so silly to me. "He's such a woman." Again, why? It's almost always something negative (because despite the impact of feminism, femaleness is still associated with negativity) Whether it's being emotional, or caring or whatever.

Well I guess that's enough gender theory for now. It's past my bedtime!! I sincerely hope you enjoyed this discussion on how Bitches Ain't Shit. Just Kidding! We all know bitches are awesome. ;)

Conversing with Men about Feminism

2010-04-06T06:33:00.003-05:00

This is pretty much how my conversations about feminism with Greg go! Haha, j/k he was the one who actually sent me the pic. I laughed.

And I'm glad my husband can have a sense of humor about the fact that his wife is a radical feminazi :)

Fake Boobs Need Not Apply

2010-03-25T20:02:00.012-05:00

Today in And This Is Why We Still Need Feminism news, the New York Post is reporting on an interesting casting call from Disney. Disney, as in the Hannah Montana, Jonas Brothers, High School Musical Disney in which we only see clean cut teens who never smoke, cuss or Do It.

Disney is apparently looking for some lassies for the upcoming Pirates of the Caribbean movie. According to the post, the casting call reads:

beautiful female fit models. Must be 5ft7in-5ft8in, size 4 or 6, no bigger or smaller. Age 18-25. Must have a lean dancer body. Must have real breasts. Do not submit if you have implants.

Some publications are focusing on the breast issue and applauding them for only using women with real breasts. The UK Times Online reports that the reasoning behind it is implants "move less freely than the real thing during action sequences." To prove the authenticity, there will be a “show and tell” day with costume designers where potential actresses will be expected to run (topless??)

This is more than a little creepy to me. The irony is not lost on me that I am in the middle of reading The Beauty Myth where Naomi Wolf looks at the ways in which a beauty standard was socially constructed and how it has harmed women.

The fact that beauty in our culture is seen as size 4-6, age 18-25, with real, large breasts is saddening. The fact that this is coming from DISNEY who primarily advertises to children is even more heartbreaking.

Keira Knightly, who is almost more famous for her "small boobs" than for her acting ability (shame because I honestly think she's a good actress) has been in the last few Pirate movies and says filmmakers "literally painted in my cleavage."

It took about 45 minutes every day for makeup artists to add shade and volume, and it looked fantastic until it got too hot shooting.

She also wore bodices that made it literally hard to breathe.

She tried alternatives such as a bodice which shrunk her waist to 18 inches. It gave her a tremendous cleavage by squeezing her breasts 'up and out' but also left her with only enough oxygen to breathe for 10 minutes:'after that I started passing out.'”

There is something wrong with this picture, not just this casting call, but the overall picture of how women are judged and what determines beauty. If you go around asking people who are close to you, people you respect and generally have good values, you hear how important "inside" beauty is. We all know a pretty girl can be "ugly" if she's dumb and mean to people. But yet people still keep going to see Megan Fox's movies*. The message we're hearing doesn't match the message we're consuming. And I don't think I feel this way because I'm 26 (close to death in Hollywood years. Until you reach "Cougar" age that is) or that I have small breasts or don't otherwise fit the Hollywood beauty ideal.

Unfortunately, it's not just Hollywood. It's EVERYWHERE. And, based on this book I'm reading, there's actually politics behind the "beauty standard" or as Wolf refers to it, the "beauty myth." That probably sounds boring to most people, but to me it's fascinating, and I'm sure you can expect a lengthy blog post when I finish reading this book. I know you will all be waiting on the edge of your seats. :)

*I don't have anything against Megan Fox. I don't think she's mean or dumb, though I've read "reports" (gossip) of that nature. I just don't think she's a particularly good actress, and I used her as an example to illustrate the point that people will often go see movies if they have a "hot chick" regardless of the quality of the movie. And, you'd be hard pressed to find a movie that stars a woman who isn't considered beautiful by Hollywood standards unless you consider movies like Miss Congeniality, She's All That or Shallow Hal in which a beautiful woman plays an ugly woman who is really a beautiful woman, and just doesn't know it yet. And yes, I realize that the character in Shallow Hal is REALLY fat in the end, but the actress who plays her is REALLY not.

What MSN Gets Wrong About Secrets Men Don't Know About Women

2010-03-23T23:08:00.002-05:00

Everything.

In the Life Of...

2010-03-20T09:20:00.004-05:00

Here's is what's going on in the life of Kim:

1. Just spent the last 15 minutes watching the greatest parody of Glenn Beck EVER. Courtesy of Jon Stewart.

2. Started writing for the Examiner. They basically have writers for every topic you could possibly think of, and they all are local to whatever area you are in. For example, if you are interested in Dallas Nudist Culture, there is an Examiner for you!

I will be writing about something less, um... weird. I am now officially the Houston Women's Issues Examiner! I know that is probably still weird to some people. What that means is that I will be writing about news stories, pop culture, etc. through a feminist lens and with a local (to Houston) spin. I think the local spin will be the hardest part for me.

For now you can check out my first article about the Texas School Board's proposed changes to the social studies curriculum. It is basically a condensed third person version of the rant that was my previous blog post. It's really hard to keep my opinions to approximately 400 words. But apparently the people on the Interweb have no patience!

So, you should go read it! Right Now! If you've already read it, you should click on it again. I get paid per page view. Like 1/2 cent per page view + $1.00 per article!! So 5,486,723 more page views and I will be quitting my day job, baby. (I'm not really doing this to make money).

I also just posted a second article, HOT OFF THE PRESSES: Removing school signs does not prevent sexual assault

3. Last weekend I watched the movie Whip It, and I am now on a mission to become a roller derby girl... uh, I mean GO SEE a roller derby event. Through my extensive Google research I found that Houston has a roller derby team! And they have their first "bout" TONIGHT. I have miraculously convinced my husband to go with me to this event this evening. This is most likely due to the fact that our late afternoon volleyball plans have been nixed because of the rainy weather today.

I am super excited to go though, and may write about it for my next Examiner article. Even though I wouldn't mind going by myself, I think it'd be more fun with Greg. Everything is more fun with Greg. Say it with me now... AWW!! Now I need to hope he doesn't change his mind. So I'll need to be super sweet the rest of the day and not wake him up until, like 5pm and refrain from constantly reminding him that our yard looks like a scene from the Jungle Book.

4. My cat is quite possibly on crack cocaine. She randomly jumps in the bathtub, chews on tape, and licks the kitchen faucet in a way that I can only describe as "inappropriate."

5. I'm almost finished reading Chelsea Handler's new book, Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang, and I'm slightly disappointed. Not as funny as Are You There, Vodka? It's Me, Chelsea. It feels somewhat forced, like "hey I'm gonna do this crazy shit, so I can write about it for my next book!" The only chapter I really laughed out loud in was "Dudley" in which she convinced her boyfriend that she was responsible for the death a dog named "Dudley" and then made him dress up and attend its fake funeral. It's funnier than it sounds, I promise.

6. I briefly got back into running while training for a 5K, but have since lapsed in going out for runs. I told myself I would go running MORE when daylight savings time kicked in. That has turned out to be a bunch of bullshit. I'm thinking of signing up for a half marathon this year which will force me to run more because I won't want to embarrass myself in an actual race. I've found out that if you run competitively in college, people expect you to be a good runner post college. I don't want to be that person wheezing on the side of the road, while onlookers say to themselves, "oh she used to be such a good runner; what happened?!" To which I would reply, "I got a JOB and a two hour commute, BITCH!!" :)

Only in Texas

2010-03-13T07:17:00.005-06:00

This week the Texas Board of Education voted to update the state's social studies curriculum "stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."

Um, what? First of all, I'm pretty sure the superiority of capitalism is ALREADY stressed nationwide. I specifically remember in government class talking about both capitalism and communism (we probably talked about other systems too but those were the main ones) and the teacher even had two students debate both of those, but it was pretty obvious which one was "right." I'm not saying I disagree that capitalism is the best system in the world. I think for the most part it is (though it certainly has its pitfalls) but I disagree with altering history books to make it sound EVEN MORE superior. What's ironic is that they changed the word "capitalism" in all the books to "free-enterprise system" because “'Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,' said one conservative member." So, to recap, capitalism is the best, but we should change its name because we don't want kids to think there's anything wrong with it...

I think the second and third things that they are emphasizing are the most worrisome to me. Further down in the article it says the board members are calling into question things like "the separation of church and state." Their argument is that you don't find it in the Constitution. Nevermind the first amendment, and that Thomas Jefferson COINED THE TERM "separation between church and state." And nevermind that it is documented in the Library of Congress

The conservative school board here in Texas "cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century" Holy shit.

"Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons 'the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.' It was defeated on a party-line vote." Talk about one sided. This just proves that this School Board isn't interested in "balance" but in furthering their own political agenda.

Ok, so they are also want to focus on Republican political philosophies and show those in a more positive light. As interested as I am in politics, I really don't think it has a place in the high school classroom. I realize sometimes its hard to avoid in a class like History or Government, but I honestly don't remember that much politics being discussed. Except maybe my junior year during the Bush/Gore election, my teacher was definitely for Bush, but I don't remember him bringing that up during actual lessons.

So, let's talk specifics. They want to make sure students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”

I mean, I guess these things should be included but it depends on at what expense, which the article doesn't say. I mean, really, Phyllis Schafly? The woman who made a career out telling other women they shouldn't have careers?

They will also change the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.

I wonder if Jim Crow laws and all the "votes in Congress" prior to Civil Rights legislation will also be emphasized?

Students will also study the "unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. The Great Society legislation was under Lyndon B Johnson, and his goals were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. It was during this time that the Civil Rights legislation that forbade job discrimination and the segregation of public accommodations was passed... but I guess that wasn't a good thing, according to Texas school board Republicans at least. The Medicare and Medicaid programs were also created during this time, without which we would have millions more uninsured people than we do now.

The new social studies curriculum also stresses that "Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism." What, we weren't racist! Hello, we interned OTHER PEOPLE TOO!

I want to go back to the "unintended consequences" of affirmative action and Title IX legislation. To me this just screams of racism and sexism. I realize affirmative action has been controversial at times, but without it I really do think blacks and other minorities would've had a much harder time breaking down certain barriers in college admissions and the job market. Just because Civil Rights legislation was passed doesn't mean the white business owners were thrilled to start hiring minorities, and colleges certainly weren't thrilled at integrating at the time.

Speaking of minorites, Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the state’s large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, “They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist.”

So, I took a grand total of one Master's level English class before dropping out, but I did actually finish this class, and one thing that stuck out to me was that within the last 20 years, the literature canon and list of authors who are taught has included many more women and minorities. Not just from present day, but from the past as well, from a time when it was thought that women and minorities didn't write great literature. They did, it just wasn't published. But it's being published and brought to light now, because people are more open to that now. This doesn't mean we should dismiss the classics that are traditionally penned by white men, but that the field has expanded. In the same way, I have to believe there are important people in history, including women and minorities who have been left out of the history books. It just seems odd to me that they have no problem with changing certain things and adding conservatives leaders to have a more prominent role in the curriculum but they are closed off to adding more Latino figures. The article doesn't mention any specific people that Ms. Berlanga wanted to add, but again, why the opposition?

The opposition they have to Title IX is just laughable. It's the law that says there needs to be equal funding and opportunities in athletics for women and girls in any school or college that receives federal funding. There has been nothing but positive effects after girls were given the opportunity to play sports in school. And boys participation in sports hasn't been hurt because of it. Today about 1 in 3 high school girls play sports, compared with about half of all boys.

Economists have done studies that show increasing girls’ sports participation had a direct effect on women’s education and employment and can also lowers the risk of obesity. Other studies (not mentioned in the above article) show that girls who participate in high school sports are less likely to use drugs, become pregnant, or commit suicide. How Title IX is anything but a positive life changing piece of legislation is beyond me. I mean, it's not like we're seeing cuts in Texas football programs or anything... so honestly with other things I'm willing to concede that there's more to the issue that meets the eye, but on this one, I think the opposition is just asinine.

Finally, they talk about Sociology. Well, to this school board the field of Sociology might as well be called Care of Magical Creatures.

In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.

“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.

Look, I'm not against personal responsibility, but to say that societal structures, economic conditions, and the media don't have any influence is crazy. It seems like the goal is to create a victim blaming society particularly in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault. Actually, there is enough victim blaming as is it, so to not teach students about sociology is very worrisome to me.

Finally, in all these votes and meetings to make changes to the HISTORY curriculum, "there were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics." They "held themselves as experts"?! Wow, I don't even know what to say here.

It's very unfortunate because I do want to have kids one day. I probably won't be able to afford private school (and probably wouldn't want to send them there even if I could), and I am not qualified to home school. So I will be trusting the public education system. I want my kids to have a solid foundation of history and to have critical thinking skills. I don't want the so called political pendulum to swing one way or the other in their classrooms. I'm not making these points here to say "liberal influence good, conservative influence bad." I'm just saying we're walking thin ice when we start altering history and what we teach our kids. It seems like these particular school board members and other conservatives I've observed in TX want to move our government more towards a theocracy each day. I think religion can be a good thing, but there's a reason we don't have an "established religion" here, and yes it DOES say in the Constitution that we SHOULDN'T have one.

Wanting all the Right Things

2010-02-23T18:06:00.005-06:00

I just finished this book by Shirin Taber and I have way too many thoughts about it to just write a quick review in Goodreads.

This is a really interesting time in my life to be reading a book like this - a book to young Christian women about how to maintain balance in their life. I've recently been indirectly told that I'm not making Christ and spiritual things a priority, and it's true I'm not. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in those things or that I've suddenly become an atheist, but I think it's fair to say my worldview has changed in the last few years. I don't really have the desire to live the "church life" that I did in high school and college (where life revolved around bible studies, church, hanging out with people from church, etc). But I do have a desire to be spiritual and to learn and to not shut away God completely. So I gave this book a chance. The last "Christian" book I read before this was Donald Miller's A Million Miles in a Thousand Years (which I enjoyed) but besides that I haven't read a book by a Christian author in a really long time.

First off I will say that I enjoyed this book much more than Captivating, and thought it was a lot more practical too. Captivating basically tells young women that we're all princesses longing for romance, an intimate relationship with God and with our husbands. Which is kinda true I guess, not the princess part but the longing for intimacy part. I felt that Captivating left so much out though. And while this book isn't all inclusive about women's desires (no book can be, really) it goes a little deeper than "find your inner princess" (IMHO).

I'll start off with the things I liked about it. First of all, it's culturally relevant. The culture wars are discussed, but this isn't a "be in the world but not part of the world" kind of book. This woman has lived and encourages other women to be culturally engaged too. She argues that women long for 7 things (again, not all inclusive of things women long for). The 7 things are: Significance, Beauty, Intimacy, Solitude, Financial Security, Legacy, and the Supernatural.

I found it really interesting, almost ironic, how in the chapter on Beauty, she was saying almost exactly the same things I just read in Female Chauvinist Pigs a few weeks ago. That women often confuse being "sexually liberated" (read, slutty) with true empowerment. It's kinda funny (in a good way) to me how two women with completely different worldviews and ways of life came to this same conclusion. She even quotes Ariel Levy (author of FCP) once! She also quotes Naomi Wolf's Beauty Myth several times. Haven't read it, but probably should since it's generally on every feminist "must read" list. So, common ground does exist between feminism and conservatism.

She talks at great lengths about feminism and "traditionalism," and this kinda leads into the things I DIDN'T like about the book - she often pits them against each other. And then (indirectly) claims that she has found the perfect harmony between the two. She makes sweeping generalizations about both. I can say that many of the claims against feminism are either not true or exaggerated (i.e. feminists don't think women should marry or have kids or that feminism is somehow mutually exclusive from honor and integrity). I don't know as much about women who considers themselves traditionalists, but I can only assume some of the claims she makes about them are not true as well.

Often times throughout the book I found subtle contradictory messages. For example, she mentions often that women can't "have it all" which isn't exactly a new claim, but then encourages women to not limit their dreams both in the home AND vocationally. She accuses baby boomers of raising our generation (the women she's writing to) "like boys." She doesn't think women should try to be "like men" but doesn't explain what that means exactly. One time she equates a "man's world" with money, sex, and power. Seems like a low opinion of men if you ask me(ironic as she accuses feminists of having a low opinion of men). Something I was particularly infuriated with was when she invoked statistics about educated women marrying later and having children later or not at all. And then went on to say, "If these statistics don't unerve you and you're still hopeful your little straight A daughter will snag a great guy sooner or later, let me warn you it may be a lot harder for her than it was for you."

Umm.. so what, we want our daughters to be smart but not TOO smart? Maybe As and Bs is ok, but not straight As?? I didn't get straight As that often, but on the rare occasion that I did, I'm sure as hell glad I didn't hear "Well that's great Kim, but maybe you should take it down a notch. Boys don't like women who are smarter than them." It's all kind of odd to me especially since the author is actually very well educated (and also married with kids).

Another downfall of the book is that I feel it's marketed towards a very narrow segment of women. She specifically says the book isn't for women over 35 which is ok, but I often got the feeling that she was also only writing to those of us with college degrees who went to liberal arts schools. Even though this applied to me I think other women will have a harder time relating or will just feel excluded all together and not give the book a chance.

Another dislike is that the Intimacy chapter dealt with mostly female friendships and other support systems, which isn't bad, but there was no discussion of the need for sexual intimacy. Sex was rarely discussed, and I feel that's kind of an important thing especially for women in 18-35 category. (not that it isn't important for other age groups, but I feel like it should've been discussed more in a book about things that are important to 18-35 year old women).

What I did like (I know I'm very back and forth)was how unlike some Christian authors she admits there's no formula for living. And even though God's Word doesn't change, she doesn't see anything wrong with the fact that culture changes and women in particular are changing the way that we live our lives. This book, like a lot of books says that relationships not things are the key to happiness. Kinda hard to argue with that. I guess the major thing I got out of this book was that there are people (Christians, even!) who don't see life in black and white but also solidified my opinion that women, and Christian women in particular, are often given contradictory messages. But to be fair to the author, this wasn't a "how to be a good Christian woman" but rather a book that will start conversations. And lookee, here I am having a conversation with myself :)

I like that she seems to thinks husbands and wives should work together so that they can both achieve their dreams and value their families and that this might not happen by the husband working 9-5 and the wife staying home to raise children. If anything, this book makes me want to communicate more with Greg just about life in general and also work on building the relationships with other people that are in my life. Some might be disappointed that it doesn't make me want to start going to church every week and become BFF with all the women there who are my age (that's not to say I'm 100% opposed to it either though). It does though make me want a "spiritual, balanced, & fulfilled life" (the book's subtitle) so I guess despite it's flaws, the author achieved what she set out to do.

Shake Weight

2010-02-15T21:45:00.004-06:00

Greg: I'm going to buy you a shake weight.
Me: Why?
Greg: To help you work out.
Me: I do work out. I run and play soccer.
Greg: You need to lift weights.
Me: Ok, so why can't you just buy me normal weights?
Greg: Because a shake weight is funny.
Me: Why is it funny?
Greg: Because it looks like you're jerking off a penis.

I'm thinking of starting a new blog with shit Greg says... it'll be like "shit my dad says" except it'll be "shit my husband says."

Cartoons Getting Makeovers! Oh My!

2010-01-26T21:22:00.008-06:00

Femininsting, who I'm a huge fan of 99% of the time, has a link up with cartoon characters that have recently gotten "makeovers." It's titled: Girls' favorite cartoon characters get makeovers (not good ones). Thanks for the parenthesis, because otherwise I might not've been sure. No really, I might not have been sure.

I'm not really sure why two of the characters from the 80s (Strawberry Shortcake and Rainbow Bright) are still popular other than for the nostalgia factor. Dora the Explorer though is all the rage in the 1-3 year old set, or so I hear from my 18 month old niece.

I guess I'm more concerned as to why there aren't new characters for girls over the age of 3 than I am at the old character makeover. I have to say though, if you are going to bring back a character from the 80s and expect it to be popular with the 4-8 crowd, you're probably going to have to modernize it a bit, which looks to be exactly what happened in the Strawberry Shortcake example. I don't look at the new Srawberry Shortcake and shudder, the slut. (I do, however, question the hat. Unless she is going to start beat boxing, it looks a little silly to me). But who knows, maybe 6 year olds will thinks it's the coolest thing ever.

I do remember reading something about Dora the Explorer being marketed to older kids. And by older, I mean those that can successfully use a toilet. It's pretty much common knowledge that if you're targeting a certain age group, your characters are going to be at least one age bracket over the group you're targeting. Think about it, what did we watch when we were kids? Saved by the Bell - a show about high schoolers, that I watched in 5th grade. 90210 - again with the high schoolers. Dawson's Creek (or "Dawson's Toilet" as I recall one teacher referring to it.) It was like the Gossip Girl of the 90s. Anyways, the point is New Dora looks pretty innocent to me. There's been criticism that she's "too sexy." I am definitely NOT a fan of encouraging young girls to be "sexy". But c'mon, she's wearing a headband! And leggings! And flats! A shirt with bows and flowers! And a supercool necklace! She's freakin' adorable! I mean, if she starts taking a drag off a cigarette, talking in a raspy voice, and propositioning Diego on the streetcorner, ok. Otherwise, I say RELAX.

Which bring us to Rainbow Bright, and if I'm going to have an issue with any of them, it's gonna be this one. Not because of the way she's dressed (except maybe the rainbow stripper boots), but mostly due to her looking kinda anorexic. It looks like new RBs head is 1/8 of the size of old RB. And, her head is bigger than her pelvis. Kinda looks like good ole Ralph Lauren might've had a hand in this one. Anyone remember this little Photoshop "Snafu"?? I DEFINITELY think there is a huge problem with very young girls (and women of all ages) observing and being held to a virtually impossible beauty standard. And this particular new Rainbow Bright DOES look a little bit more grown up than cute little adolescent Dora. It kinda looks like she's wearing eye makeup, and rainbow stripper boots, and her ultra high ponytail kinda makes her look dumb. Ok, so Feministing got 1 of 3 right.

But, you know there have been other cartoon character who were older than their target demographic, like Kim Possible, Lizzie McGuire (I think she was cartoon half the time, Hillary Duff the other half?) and I don't remember a ton of complaints about them. Plus Power Puff girls... I remember thinking they were cool. So, overall, yes we do have to watch the messages we are sending young girls when we create and let them watch these characters who they are supposed to adore and love. But it's ok to let them grow up A LITTLE. I think we need to point out that there's many different body types and that being super skinny isn't really important at all. I think we need to point out that character is more important than anything. So if the Bratz girls look super cute but act like super, well, brats, that's not something to admire. But if modern Strawberry Shortcake is sharing with Huckleberry Pie and new adolescent Dora is super smart and resourceful, maybe we could focus on those things instead of over analyzing a piece of clothing.

Coming Soon: Collating Wars

2010-01-07T20:13:00.004-06:00

What is with all the reality shows that have to do with jobs? Yes, I know know the better question might be, what is with all the reality shows? Period. But, alas, we are way past that point.

There is I want to be a hairdresser!! (Making the Cut) I want to be a fashion designer!! (Project Runway) I want to be a chef!! (Top Chef) I want to be a tattoo artist!!! (Inked) I want to work in a tanning salon!! (I don't know the name of this one, but I am ashamed to say I've watched it for an excruciating 10 minutes... on more than one occasion.) So then people who want to do these various jobs do crazy competitions FOR AN HOUR. FOR MULTIPLE EPISODES. AND SOMETIMES SEASONS. It's crazy.

I wonder what job is next to be brought to the world of reality tv/competition. I want to see some sort of office wars show. I imagine there would be a very large collating project competition, with mass hysterics of course because everyone hates each other. There should be a typing competition too. Like in high school when they covered your hands and you had to type with both accuracy and speed. But to make it not boring and to create suspense (key to this type of programming) the producers will mix up the letters on the keyboard. Or perhaps secretly remove two or three of the most frequently used letters. Like S and R and E. Actually, what the hell, we should just make it R,S,T,L,N,E - Wheel of Fortune Style. That would really screw with people if all those letters were missing... and their hands and the keyboard would be covered of course. So they'd be all WHAT THE FUCK!!! as they were typing. Mass hysterics.

I now have a new understanding of the phrase, "You should be part of the solution, not part of the problem."

Happy New Year!

2010-01-04T20:22:00.012-06:00

I'd like to welcome the 3 people that read this blog to the new year and... the first post of the new year.

Today was my first day back at work, and the first thing I read today (after boring emails from customers and coworkers) was an article on MSN Money Why It Costs More To Be A Woman

MP Dunleavey (a lady!) says it costs more to be a woman. We are talking actual dollars here, people. Some examples of things that cost more for women: body wash, shampoo, deodorant, razors, dry cleaning, hair cuts, alterations, cars, houses, health insurance - little things like that.

Ms. Dunleavey's advice is basically "buy like a man" i.e. don't pay a premium for the pink bottle, nice fragrance etc. It gets a little trickier when you're dealing with buying a car or house. You see, you need credit (usually) to buy these things and women were more likely to carry subprime mortgages with higher interest rates.

This could be because women still make 78 cents to the dollar of what men make, making it harder to save and have good credit.

The article concedes that some things for women really do cost more! (i.e women's shaving cream needs a rust-resistant aluminum-bottom can because women like to shave in the shower). But there are also plenty of examples where the markup is obvious.

I was going through some of the comments and they were actually pretty hard on the author. This particular article got over 800 comments (no i did not read them all) and from my experience as a somewhat frequent reader of MSN money that is way above average so something in this article must've resonated with readers.

The comments ranged from: "Yah well da the ladies get free drinks in the clubs!!" to "my wife has 26 different kinds of lotions, 87 pairs of shoes, 207 handbags so it is her own fault" to "women only make less money because they take breaks to have kids. DUH." to "um, excuse me guys pay more for car and life insurance."

So I thought I'd post my own thoughts on the matter...

As far as women paying more for incidentals, though I try to be a "bargain" shopper and only purchase what I "need" I end up buying a heck of a lot more stuff than Greg. When Greg needs something, he puts his empty deodorant stick on the sink... and that's about it. (I know, totally anti feminist, he should buy his own damn deodorant, but you know - someone has to go to the store)

We have shared soap/shampoo, and I stopped paying money for $9.00 body washes, well basically when I had to start paying my own bills. However, I do have my own facewash, moisturizer, lotion from Target, razors, makeup, nail polish etc, oh and eye makeup remover. That shit is expensive and I seem to go through a whole bottle every 2-3 weeks. Not to mention tampons, which are not cheap. And I learned the hard way that you do not want to go generic on that.

Now, some gentleman might say, "hey ladies, you don't need makeup! We like you just the way you are without all that gook on your face. You shouldn't be wasting money on that stuff."

I would argue that *some* of the makeup/products women buy ARE necessary. Not just tampons either. See, someone at my first "real" job told me a little secret. She said, "a woman cannot just throw on a suit and look presentable." What she meant was, if a woman walks into an interview or a board meeting to make a presentation, she cannot just have a nice pantsuit. Her hair must be done nice, and she is generally expected to have some, though not too much makeup on. There's been books written on the beauty standard, how women strive to live up to to it, how they fail, how they are marketed to nonstop to always look their best. I guess what I'm getting at is no, you probably shouldn't buy the super expensive makeup at the mall, unless you happen to have lots and lots of money i guess. Because the $20.00 lipstick is probably not 400% better than the $5.00 lipstick, but to say "well just don't buy lipstick" is generally not realistic.

About the whole "women get free drinks" complaint, I don't think that "evens things out" as a lot of people suggested. I guess SOME women might expect a drink bought for them before a conversation is started, but that sounds kinda lame, not to mention antiquated to me.

Now, the whole insurance thing, this is actually a legitimate concern for men although to be fair, the article was called "Why It Costs More To Be A Woman" not "Why It Costs More To Be a Man."

Guys do pay more for car insurance, although (and I might be wrong on this) I think the difference is more noticeable for young drivers, absent other factors like accidents, tickets etc. i.e. It's a bigger difference between a 17 year old boy and 17 year old girl with everything else being the same, that it is for a 26 year old woman and 26 year old man with everything else being the same.

If I'm going to say "well women of childbearing age shouldn't be charged higher insurance premiums than men of the same age" shoudn't I also say "Men should not be charged more in auto premiums than women?"

I am not sure. For health insurance, men might say "I shouldn't have to pay as much as her; I am never going to need maternity care." But yet his premiums do help pay for the maternity care he'll never need like my premiums help pay for the prostate cancer treatments I'll never need (oh and Viagra pills, but that's another post). That's the point of health insurance, spreading the risk (and it's why younger people are going to be forced to buy insurance soon)

With auto insurance, men are more likely to get into accidents but I don't know if that necessarily means they should be charged more if say they have no at fault accidents or tickets on their record. Same with life insurance, men are likelier to die sooner, so it costs more to cover them. I don't know the fair answer to that one.

Overall though, I think I would agree that "it costs more to be a woman" especially a divorced or widowed woman, or a single mom - Not that there aren't men in poverty, but women are more likely to be in poverty And as far as the "well women shouldn't have kids if they want a higher paying career like men, it is a choice (except of course when it's 'NOT A CHOICE)" argument... Right, I'm sure that will work out really well for society. I've written before about work/life balance and I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing so here, but it'd be really nice if we lived in a country that valued children and valued that parents of both genders need to make a living wage. Flex time and paid family leave for mothers and fathers is something many other first world countries have.

But that being said, I think overall women do need to work at being better consumers and not buying stuff we don't need. Those little things do add up. I wouldn't say "shop like a man" though. I would say "shop like an informed consumer."

Feminism! Fox News! Favorite Things!

2009-12-23T13:03:00.010-06:00

Coming in at Number 5 after "Blame," Fox News columnist S.E Cupp reveals how "militant feminazis assaulted the dignity of women."

"Feminism" receives this dubious honor because feminists don't like Sarah Palin. We all know the number one rule of feminism: must. vote. for. the. woman. candidate. - even if you disagree with everything on her platform. Solidarity!! S.E. Cupp accuses feminists of believing Sarah Palin is the "wrong kind of woman." But she's wrong. (Quick Google search reveals S.E. Cupp is a woman! Huh, wonder why she goes by her initials? Can't be because women writers don't get paid or respected as much as men... of course not.)

No, it's just that she was the wrong candidate for many women (and men!). But don't worry, Fox gives us other examples that "help solidify the total irrelevance of feminist identity politics."

- There was Nancy Pelosi, at the beginning of the year, suggesting that contraception made for good stimulus.

Haha, contraception. "Stimulus." Get it?! Contraception in the stimulus bill, silly feminism! Oh wait, except that publicly funded family planning clinics that provide contraception prevent 1.4 million unintended pregnancies each year which saves 4.3 BILLION in public funds paid out through Medicaid...maybe it wasn't such a crazy idea after all? Maybe it was actually a GOOD idea? Nah.

- Then there was Senator Barbara Boxer telling a decorated Brigadier General that “ma’am” is now an insult.

True, not Senator Boxer's finest moment. But to be fair, she didn't say "ma'am" was an insult, she just asked to be called "Senator" which is indeed her title. But, I still don't think "ma'am" was inappropriate. But of course, the real lesson we can draw from this exchange is that feminism is totally irrelevant. AND, that SENATOR Boxer is a BITCH.

- David Letterman, the world’s best boss and husband, joked that Sarah Palin’s daughter got knocked up by Alex Rodriguez. (He didn’t make clear which daughter he was talking about – her underage daughter or her barely legal one.)

Second best boss and husband: Mark Sanford. Also, anyone with a brain can figure out he was talking about the daughter who had just recently had a baby. I remember when his apology to Sarah Palin was a big deal. Little did we know that was the warmup apology.

- And Secretary of State Clinton snapped at a Congolese university student for daring to ask her what Bill thought of something.

This one is kinda tricky because the context is missing (shockingly...). In a townhall meeting in Democratic Republic of Congo (an official "Secretary of State" function) Hillary was asked by a student what President Obama would think of a deal that had to do with Chinese financial contracts with Congo, but the translator made a mistake, posing the question as what would Bill Clinton think. Now, she could only answer the question as it was asked to her by the translator and she was rightfully annoyed. She replied:

You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state, I am. You ask my opinion. I will tell you my opinion; I'm not going to channel my husband.

Yet another example of how Hillary Clinton is a ball busting bitch feminazi... of course she also was there championing the rights of women and solidifying her commitment to improving women's rights worldwide. And she listened to African women tell the stories of their often difficult lives, but you know that didn't really get reported on as much as the fact that Hillary Clinton is a big ol' bitch.

She (S.E. Cupp) signs off with, Forty years after women’s lib and the left is still politicizing reproduction, fretting over titles and putting conservative women down. Stay classy, feminism.

Can't talk about feminism without talking about reproduction I guess. That's fine...I'd argue that it's the right who keeps politicizing reproduction by constantly restricting access to (ironically) both contraception and abortion. Fretting over titles - don't see how it's relevant as the one remark by Senator Boxer hasn't exactly led to a widespread movement of Congresswomen rejecting "ma'am" as a word that indicates respect. And as far as putting conservative women down, seriously? I think Fox has a case of "pot calling the kettle black" (again, SHOCKINGLY!) You just referred to a group of (liberal) women as militant feminazis. And by the way, attacking viewpoints is different than attacking the person. Many many feminists pointed out that Sarah Palin received sexist treatment on the campaign trail as did Hillary Clinton. They did so while disagreeing with Palin's politics. Amazing!

Oh Fox News... YOU stay classy

I'll Tell You What I Want, What I Really Really Want...

2009-12-20T11:00:00.004-06:00

...how about some more "girl power?" I get so disappointed when I hear songs by young female artists where the message is "Guy likes me; yay I'm so happy!" "Guy doesn't like me... aww I'm so sad." I'm not trying to dismiss the emotional roller-coaster that is often young love, nor am I trying to reduce feminism to the Spice Girls...but some songs are so annoying that they must be called out.

I've written before about Kelly Clarkson's "My Life Would Suck Without You," in which the nauseating message is self explanatory. Today I would like to discuss "According to You" by Orianthi (no idea if that is her real name).

This song was deceptive. It started out with catchy lyrics and beat. The first verse:

According to you
I'm stupid,
I'm useless,
I can't do anything right.
According to you
I'm difficult,
hard to please,
forever changing my mind.
I'm a mess in a dress,
can't show up on time,
even if it would save my life.
According to you. According to you.

:::Cue instrumental break:::

I was sitting in my car after a long day of work. It was the first time I had heard this song... I kinda like it, I thought. This is it! Next verse she is totally gonna rip into this guy. She is gonna say how awesome she is, and if he doesn't see that, then he can suck it!! YES!!

Second verse:

But according to him
I'm beautiful,
incredible,
he can't get me out of his head.
According to him
I'm funny,
irresistible,
everything he ever wanted.
Everything is opposite,
I don't feel like stopping it,
so baby tell me what I got to lose.
He's into me for everything I'm not,
according to you.

NOOOO!!! I was tricked. This was not the anti Twilight, Spice Girls reincarnate message that I was hoping for. I mean it's cool that she found someone who likes her for her and I guess now she is kinda rubbing it in the first guy's face... but what happens when guy #2 suddenly is "not into her?"

I have no doubt that this girl will soon be very popular and that this song will climb the charts. In the greater scheme of things, it's not the worst song ever. At least she's not saying "oh he's totally right I AM stupid and useless..." I get that. But c'mon, can't a girl get a little zigazig ha every once in awhile?

Adam Lambert...Not Sucking

2009-12-19T14:28:00.002-06:00

Don't worry parents, no gay sexy sex dance moves here. Just Adam Lambert being a badass.

Seriously, he's super talented. That is all.

I think I really screwed up...

2009-12-12T18:47:00.004-06:00

Every other Saturday I work at a resale shop that's owned by the Women's center. They help victims and survivors of family violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sexual abuse (not exclusively women, but obviously mostly women). I've been volunteering there for about a year, and when I first signed up to volunteer I really wanted to do something where I would be working directly with the women in the shelter. But I realized that with my work being in the middle of Houston and the shelter being not in Houston... I just couldn't make the time commitment. But they said they really needed volunteers at the warehouse (where they take donations and sell household items, furniture etc). So I decided to do that. And the reason I do it every other Saturday is because I don't want it to feel like I have to "work" 6 days a week. I don't want to wake up and think "UGH, I have to go work at the resale shop today." I figured twice a month would be a good amount of time. They have volunteers that work there several days each week, but they are mostly old ladies who don't have jobs.

Anyways, Saturdays are always really busy at the store, and I kinda like working the register when it's busy because it goes by fast and even though you might not think so at first there's a lot of multi-tasking with questions and calls and putting stuff away up front. And I've been told by the manager that most of the other (older) volunteers aren't really comfortable at the register especially when it's really busy, so it works out I guess.

Today we were especially busy in the afternoon and there was a lady at the register who asked me the address of the shelter. Obviously I told her "I can't give it to you." For confidentiality reasons and for the safety of clients who are there, volunteers/staff cannot give out the address. Honestly, I don't even know it and could not have given it to her if I did. She said she had to drop something off there which of course doesn't make sense because we don't take the donations there. Now, because I wasn't thinking and because we were really busy and there were people in line I didn't think to ask "well what do you need to drop off." Then, she tells me "Well I have the address at home but not in my car" which of course is probably a lie and I just told her again "I'm sorry I can't give it to you." I wasn't rude, but I wasn't exactly nice either. I just kinda blew her off so I could get to the next person in line and it just hit me like a ton of bricks when I got home that maybe she was asking for the address because she needed to go there.

I was so caught up with checking people out and packing their stuff and answering questions about if the Christmas ornament is 25 cents or 50 cents that I forgot the reason I volunteer there. The whole reason I volunteer there is so I could help people, even if it's indirectly, and there's a strong possibility that this woman actually needed help and I totally blew it. I just feel like shit. And I know there's nothing I could've done except give her the hotline number, but at least I could've done something. And we do have business cards and brochures are up front with the hotline number, but maybe she didn't see them or maybe she did and she was just embarrassed to take one. I really don't know. But I just can't help but thinking she was looking for help, and I just blew her off. And maybe the place she went home to is not a safe place. I know that it's not my fault, but I still think I really screwed up...I can't really fix it or undo it, but I guess I need to be more conscious of it when when people come into the store and ask about anything directly related to the shelter.

Breaking News: Adam Lambert is GAY

2009-11-26T19:10:00.005-06:00

I only caught the last 10 minutes or so of the American Music Awards (AMAs) and apparently I caught the best, or at least most controversial part. No, not Taylor Swift winning a bazillion awards. I'm talking of course about Adam Lambert. Two things were going through my head during his performance. #1. This song kinda sucks. #2. Huh... he's being pretty sexual/risque in this performance.

Now, I didn't think either of these thoughts would make the morning news the next day, but clearly I was wrong. I didn't think Adam Lambert kissing a guy on stage during the performance was a big deal or would make headlines and I certainly didn't think the sexuality he exhibited would make news either. Yes, there was gyrating, yes there was bondage like costumes, yes there was even some sexual "simulation" but you know what, it was nothing I haven't seen before, mostly or almost exclusively by female performers. I am thinking Madonna, Janet Jackson, Britney Spears, Lil Kim, Lady Gaga, etc. If you think about some of the performances done by these ladies in the past, is it really that different in regards to the sexuality displayed in the performance than Adam Lambert's performance at the AMAs?

The firestorm after Adam's performance started almost immediately. He was scheduled to be on Good Morning America the next morning, on ABC, the same network that aired the AMAs, and that appearance was promptly canceled. This gave CBS a chance to book Lambert and get ratings for their morning show since everyone wanted to see Adam talk about his performance. I saw a clip of the interview, and Adam was totally cool about it. He admitted he could see why some people wouldn't like it and said his music and performances are not for everyone. (h/t Broadsheet)

CBS on the other hand, felt the need to "blur" out Adam kissing a guy on stage and then in the same "controversy" clip literally less than 30 seconds later, showed Madonna and Britney kissing at the VMAs completely uncensored, what do you know. When the interviewer set him up for an apology, "don't you think you owe your fans an apology? THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!" Adam politely declined to apologize, and I say good for him. He was performing at a show for an adult audience, it was almost 11:00 at night his time, and other (female) performers had been sexually suggestive and no one seemed to mind.

Even though there was controversy surrounding the infamous Madonna/Britney/Christina kiss at the MTV Video Music Awards in 2007, it's still been shown on TV multiple times and half the commentary regarding it was about how "hot" it was. For the most part, the media doesn't seem to have a problem with females being sexually suggestive, and there also doesn't seem to be a problem with two females kissing as long as they actually are NOT GAY. Somehow, I don't think Melissa Etheridge or K.D. Lang kissing a woman on stage would've gotten the reaction that Madonna and Britney got. As long as women are seen as sexually attractive and sexually available (potentially) to men, it's ok for them to be sexual. We (as a society and in the media) actually encourage it. Let's face it, we encourage it a lot. It's practically a REQUIREMENT if you want to be a female pop star.

Pop stars have always been pushing boundaries, and while I don't think it's necessary for every performance to be overtly sexual in the way that Lambert's was, I don't necessarily think it's "inappropriate." It wasn't the "Teen Choice Awards" which incidentally featured teen pop sensation Miley Cyrus pole dancing on top of an ice cream truck. If we want to have a conversation about what is and is not appropriate in regards to sexual performances, maybe we should start with why teenagers are pole dancing at an awards show for children? But, of course, we barely heard a peep about it because fetishizing young female sexuality and having teenagers pole dance on top of ice cream trucks is totally normal and acceptable. But Adam Lambert kissing a guy and gyrating on stage is UNACCEPTABLE. THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN.

Thanks, Scott Evans!

2009-11-22T08:06:00.013-06:00

Actual comment from AJC (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) article

Yes, women have reproductive rights. They have the right to keep their legs together.

Thanks, Scott Evans. Please tell me more about my reproductive rights...

I feel like whenever I talk about this people look at me differently. You know, the "A word", "shmashmortion." I know I'm not the only "pro choice" person out there, but sometimes it feels like it.

So the big issue in the news lately, maybe you've heard of it. It's called the Stupak amendment, and it's part of the healthcare bill that's being voted on. And I've been reading about it for weeks now, and I'm still confused. So I can only imagine how people who might only read one quick article about it might be REALLY confused.

Proponents of it say that it merely reinforces existing law, which is that no governments funds can pay for abortion. Medicaid, S-Chip, plans for federal employees, military, etc, do not cover or pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is endangered. (Also known as the Hyde Amendment) 87% of employer based insurance plans cover abortions. Guttmacher Institute says that 1 in 3 women will have had an abortion by the age of 45. It's one of the most common surgical procedures there is.

Basically what the Stupac amendment is saying is that the government will ban coverage for abortions from all public and private health plans in the "Exchange" that's going to be created (maybe).

To help individuals purchase insurance, the federal government will provide subsidies (in the form of premium credits) to eligible individuals and families with incomes between 150% and 400% above the poverty level.

The House bill also extends premium credits to individuals with employer-sponsored insurance if their share of premiums exceeds 12% of their income, which could make an additional 1 million people eligible for purchasing coverage in the Exchange. RH Reality Check

You can read two different articles about it, and they will say two different things (either it's not changing existing law, or it's taking away abortion coverage from millions of women who already have it) But my question is, why do you need a new law to say what's already in an existing law?

So my feeling is that the purpose of the amendment is to continue to chip away at women's rights to obtain an abortion by imposing more and more restrictions and making it financially unfeasible to obtain one. So basically the right to an abortion would only extend to women who can pay out of pocket for it.

60 percent of American's don't want federal funds to pay for abortions? Ok, well we should clearly go with the majority... I'm sure that will work out well. I wonder what other legal medical procedures or medications we can vote for doing away with? Contraception will probably be next on list I'm sure. With all the talk about no shmashmortion coverage, no is talking about how no insurers in the plan are required to cover contraception, as most insurers do now

Odd to me that the same politicians who are against abortion aren't fierce advocates for birth control. I never understood that.

Yet despite its widespread use and acceptance, lawmakers don’t see birth control as the fact of life that it is. Even though politicians are—or, at least, presumably were at some point—regular people, they pretend that something most women have used as a matter of course is a moral issue, and a politically radioactive one at that.

You don't get to pick what your tax dollars go to. I don't like funding two wars, but I'm SOL. I don't think I'm a bad person because I support the right to have an abortion pre-viability, and the right to have an abortion post-viability if the woman's life or health is in jeopardy, a law which incidentally has been in place for 36 years and has not been overturned despite multiple Republican administrations being in office during that time.

That doesn't mean I'm "pro abortion" or that I hate babies. Quite the opposite in fact. And people who don't want it to be legal have every right to persuade their legislators to change the law, which is kind of what's happening in a round about way, but I think then that they should also support funding for contraception, and they should also support government funded healthcare for babies that are born and their mothers who need it. They should support prenatal care and delivery and birth control being covered in all health insurance plans. And if we're going to look at it from a cost perspective (and it's always being looked at from a cost perspective) it's a lot cheaper for an insurance plan to cover birth control than it is to cover children for 18 years.

I'd like to thank Scott Evans for informing me of my reproductive rights. I should actually post his comment in its entirely because it was so nice of him to inform women about their rights and choices.

November 20th, 2009
6:53 pm

Um…are women too stupid to know what causes pregnancy or what? Yes, women have reproductive rights. They have the right to keep their legs together. And if they cannot control themselves for whatever reason, then they have choices which are: 1. The choice to keep the baby or 2. The choice to adopt the baby. The unborn are babies and it’s never right to kill a baby.

I'd like to think that most women do in fact know what causes pregnancy, and well actually, I would hope that men would know too. But that doesn't matter because as we all know men have every right to sleep around because they don't have to worry about getting pregnant and if a man does get a woman pregnant, it was her fault for being a slut who couldn't "control herself" and didn't keep her legs together. Thanks, Scott!

Obviously, as Scott Evans informed me of, sometimes women can't "control themselves" and thus get pregnant. Regardless of current law, we now know from Scott Evan's superior commentary that women have TWO choices. I'm going to give Scott the benefit of the doubt here (why, I have no idea) and assume that in Choice #2 he actually meant give the baby up for adoption rather than adopt the baby since women don't technically adopt babies that come out of their vaginas.

I think the original article from the AJC that my "friend" Scott commentated on makes a good point. Women of childbearing age in the US and most middle aged people do not know an America where abortion is illegal.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court granted women the right to control their own reproduction in a 1973 ruling, Roe v Wade, forty-something Americans have no first-hand knowledge of back alley abortions. It’s likely they haven’t even heard second-hand stories of women who died from infections caused by coat-hanger terminations.

I think it's important to remember that women died from unsafe abortion, and women are dying every day in developing countries from unsafe abortion. 70,000 annually And yes, I do want to see the abortion rate reduced and eventually eliminated. But making it illegal and unsafe is not the way to do that. Education and access to contraception (for both men and women) is.

What is Wrong with Conservatives?

2009-10-29T06:30:00.005-05:00

Well for one thing, they value "their women" for being hot and wearing Jimmy Choos? I wish I was kidding.

I'm probably going to be late for work because of this... but I couldn't resist. You should read the article in its entirety but I have provided you some commentary on some of the funniest lines.

"Could be our slogan: Come for the culture war ... stay for the chicks."

Because "our chicks" are HAWT! Forget about their individualism or opinions. Well I guess we can feign interest in their opinions as long as they keep wearing those sexy skirts on TV! HAWT.

"The primary reason our womenfolk are at war with the looming spectre of the nanny state is because you can't buy Jimmy Choos in a socialist paradise."

The primary reason that women are not voting for your party is probably because you are referring to them as "womenfolk."

"The only sensible footwear you'll find in a right-wing woman's closet are the Nike cross-trainers that go with her gym membership. Everything else has a three-inch heel. Minimum"

No fatties on the right!! They also apparently check your heel height at the door; hope you like bunions ladies!

"You never hear a right-wing woman break out statistics pointing out that only 25% of elected offices in Canada are held by women, and then whining about it. No. A right-wing woman wants to get elected, she runs for office. If she wins, great. If she loses ... well, there's always more shoe shopping."

If only I could think of a woman on the left who ran for office, I could totally point out how stupid this person sounds.... If only...arg! On the tip of my tongue... Hil....hilarious!! This author is simply hilarious. Women not represented in government in equal numbers?? Meh, we make up for it BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE SHOES. Boo Ya!

"A right-wing woman hits the gym, swings past Sobey's and has dinner on the table by the time you get home ... while her left-wing counterpart is still stuck in traffic listening to Sarah McLachlan on her iPod and feeling morally superior about her carrot choices. And when that plate of food is put in front of you by the right-wing hottie you had the good sense to marry, it will be 100% tofu-free. If you're lucky, she just remembered to buy steak and forgot about the carrot entirely."

She probably also worked before hitting the gym, but having her conservative husband help with dinner is clearly out of the question. She serves her husband, tofu-free dammit!

"They know that the good life costs money ... so they're not sure why the average Canadian is handing -- on average! -- half their income to smarmy government apparatchiks who spend it mostly on stupid crap."

Our women are a genuine asset when they enter politics because they've spent their lives figuring out how to live within their family's means ... while still affording a couple of pairs of those Jimmy Choos."

Smarmy government...BAH!!! Conservative women are so much smarter than me. (and hotter!) And a $400.00 pair of shoes IN NO WAY qualifies as "stupid crap" except in liberal land.

"And in case you're not convinced, to indicate the utter superiority of the right-wing woman over the left-wing variant ... just turn on The View.
The left has Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg.
We've got Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
Checkmate."

I don't listen to what any of these women have to say because I don't care. I simply put the TV on mute and watch that sexy Elisabeth Hasselbeck nod vigorously and flip her hair. HAWT

Sexy Clownfish? Seriously?

2009-10-21T18:19:00.004-05:00

I like how every Halloween costume imaginable can be made into a "SEXY" Halloween costume. Gone are the days of just being a "sexy kitten" or "sexy nurse." Now, ANYTHING can be sexy simply by hiking up your skirt and opening up your blouse.

Why you can be a sexy border patrol agent! A sexy pirate! A sexy honeybee! A sexy Alice in Wonderland! A sexy clownfish! Yes, a sexy clownfish.

It's a little ridiculous. Whatever happened to a little creativity? Whatever happened to looking sexy without looking ridiculous? Surely, there is some sort of happy medium between being dressed head to toe as "The Bride of Frankenstein" as Lindsay Lohan's character did in Mean Girls (before she knew about "the slut rule"), and the costumes the other girls wore that reflect "the one day a year a girl can dress like a total slut and no one can say anything to her about it."

Last year, one of the most popular Halloween costumes was "Sarah Palin." And while some women I'm sure donned a red, white, and blue bikini and a "Miss Alaska" sash, I thought it would be fun to 1. Not spend a lot of money on a Halloween costume. 2. Actually try to somewhat look like her. 3. Make fun of her a little bit without being too mean (I had to go to a party at my inlaws...)

So what I ended up with was a skirt and suit jacket, my glasses, hair in bun, a small American flag, and a nametag that read HELLO My Name Is "Maverick"

I thought it was a good costume... not saying there's anything wrong with trying to look "sexy" just saying that maybe our definition of sexy is little skewed.

Leave Meghan Alone!!

2009-10-15T19:01:00.005-05:00

For those who may be unfamiliar with Meghan McCain, she is the 24 year old daughter of Senator and former Presidential candidate John McCain. She gained notoriety by blogging about her experience on the campaign trail with her dad at her blog, McCain Blogette During the campaign I perused her blog a few times and I found it mildly annoying and not terribly interesting.

What I found to be more interesting was how Meghan was trying to become a young fresh face of the Republican party (which, by the way, they need.) In many ways she has succeeded. She has appeared on the Colbert report and has described herself as "Pro-sex, pro-life, pro-gay marriage." She is also a columnist for The Daily Beast and has written some interesting though certainly not groundbreaking pieces. Confession - I kinda like Meghan McCain. I agree with her on some things, disagree on others, but I admire the way she has taken a stance on issues like gay rights when that's not the popular stance within the party. I'm not saying she should be given a award or anything for tolerating gay people, but she's doing her thing.

By putting herself out there in the public arena and being more or less a political figure, she is definitely opening herself up to criticism. But I think much of it is unwarranted.

The first time I recall Meghan really being "in the news" was for something that had nothing to do with politics at all. Well, maybe a little. It started when Meghan criticized Ann Coulter in one of her articles on the Daily Beast. (another reason why I like Meghan McCain. Seriously that took balls. Ann Coulter is a powerful and detestable figure in the Republican party - IMHO) But instead of responding to Meghan's writing or ideas, conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham mocked her by saying:

Ok, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in the Real World, but then I realized that, well, they don’t like plus-sized models. They only like the women who look a certain way. And on this 50th anniversary of Barbie, I really have something to say.

Cause it's totally cool to not only mock her but also make fun of her weight. Yes, that's what two women who are prominent figures in the media should be discussing.

So that died down, but now McCain finds herself back in the news again. Ever the tweeter (cause that's what the cool kids are doing now!), Meghan recently posted a pic of herself with a book in hand along with the tweet, my "spontaneous" night in is my Andy Warhol biography and takeout....I'm getting old

The reason it made news is because she's wearing a low cut tank top and she's showing a lot of cleavage. (pic is off Twitter but you can see it on the link) Apparently she got a lot of hurtful comments, people calling her a slut etc. because she subsequently posted the following tweets:

so I took a fun picture not thinking anything about what I was wearing but apparently anything other than a pantsuit I am a slut, this is

why I have been considering deleting my twitter account, what once was fun now just seems like a vessel for harassment

when I am alone in my apartment, I wear tank tops and sweat pants, I had no idea this makes me a "slut", I can't even tell you how hurt I am

I do want to apologize to anyone that was offended by my twitpic, I have clearly made a huge mistake and am sorry 2 those that are offended.

My take on this is that it's ridiculous that it's making news. She is a 24 year old woman and she shouldn't have to apologize for a picture she posted on her twitter account.

It's not like she's Miley Cyrus (not saying that Miley Cyrus should or should not have apologized for her racy photos, but I feel there is a different aspect involved when it's a minor, who is a public figure, whose fan base is 5 year olds) In this case though, if you don't like the picture, don't follow her on twitter anymore! For crying out loud. One commenter posted, “You knew you were posting a nearly NSFW [not safe for work] photo, so don’t pretend like you’re surprised at people’s reaction.”

"Not Safe For Work?" Here's an idea, don't be on Twitter at work!! (confession #2, I've been on Twitter at work before. Shh.) But seriously, get over it. She has boobs. Yes, the way the picture was taken it kinda looks like she was trying to show them off, but I honestly don't think she did it for the attention or wanted attention for that. And I also don't think she is obligated to put on a parka if she's posting a picture of herself. Just like we, the public, are not obligated to follow her on Twitter.

Actual Conversaton

2009-10-02T21:06:00.002-05:00

Greg: I ruined a pair of your socks.
Me: How?
Greg: :::points to feet::: He is wearing my socks.
Me: Geez Greg, do your frickin laundry. What are you gonna wear my underwear when you run out of those?
Greg: I don't know... I'm going commando right now.
Me: You're disgusting.

I thought it was joke! I wrote it down in my diary.

2009-09-30T20:53:00.006-05:00

Whenever I hear that someone is attempting to make an argument against women's suffrage (yes I have heard this more than once! I know.) I always think surely they are joking... but no.

This guy John Derbyshire thinks "we would be a better country if women didn't vote." (via Think Progress)

He was on Alan Colme's radio show this morning where he danced around saying that we should repeal women's suffrage, but basically said that women shoudn't have the right to vote, and he "wouldn't lose any sleep" if that were the case.

Two reasons for this, apparently: 1. We got along 130 years just fine without women voting! 2. Women tend to "vote left." Translation: Women are not voting the way I (conservative male) want them to. Therefore, they should not vote.

Oh yeah, he also thinks we should repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you “shouldn’t try to force people to be good.”

Alan Colmes countered with "should we bring back slavery too?" to which Derbyshire responded, "No, I’m in favor of freedom personally." I guess he is only in favor of freedom if you have a penis. Sorry ladies!

Unfortunately this guy is not some random whackjob off the streets. I never heard of him before today, but apparently he's written a few books (his latest which he was promoting on the show - apparently an entire chapter of which is dedicated to ending women's suffrage) and also writes for the National Review.

Well, at least Colmes made him look like an idiot. So much better without Hannity...

Save the Cheerleader. Save the World!

2009-09-04T15:52:00.008-05:00

The world appears to be in peril... because cheerleading as we know it may become extinct. Newsweek recently broke a story that the University of Connecticut (a NCAA D1 school) is cutting its cheerleading program and replacing it with a "spirit squad."

At first glance the differences may not be obvious. However, the Hartford Courant has reported that the spirit squad will do away with gymnastics and stunts that the cheerleading program had, and instead will focus on "tailgating areas handing out spirit buttons and other kinds of spirit supplies, and will focus on timeout, sideline and in-the-stand cheers that are fan-interactive." The reason for this, according to the school is that "By changing the style, and not requiring gymnastics experience, we will be able to offer the opportunity to participate to a broader pool of students. Students who did not have a chance to 'cheer' previously, or students who are not gymnasts, can represent their college as 'spirit ambassadors.'"

The problem with this is that college sports, especially at the D1 level, are supposed to be hard. Spots on the team should be reserved only for the very best of athletes, and if you can't cut it you either redshirt a season (you don't participate in games/competition but you practice and travel with the team) or you go to a smaller school where you can cut it. But by keeping their cheerleading program competitive and selective, UConn and other schools would have to recognize cheerleaders as actual athletes.

Now, I used to be on the camp that didn't think cheerleading was a "real" sport because they wore skimpy outfits and didn't get mud on their uniforms like I did playing soccer and running through muddy cross country trails. But, that's stupid. Cheerleaders and Poms required just as much athleticism as any other sports in the school, but weren't actually classified as sports even though they go to competitions all the time.

It's still this way in college, even at the top levels. According to Newsweek, "The National Collegiate Athletic Association doesn't consider cheerleading a member sport, nor does the organization have plans to recognize it in the future. In order for a sport to be recognized under Title IX, the 1972 bill that guaranteed equal funding for men's and women's college athletics, an activity must be primarily competitive."

"Cheerleading doesn't fall under that and it shouldn't," says Jim Lord, executive director of the American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators. "If we're going to be cheering seven or eight home games for football, and maybe 15 to 20 home games for basketball—and that's just the men's side—then we would have to compete [in cheerleading competitions] at least that many times. That's impossible."

Most clubs and activities don't require practice every day, competitions every weekend plus participation in football and basketball games both home and away, sometimes for both men's and women's teams (yes, women's teams have cheerleaders. Sometimes). So, to replace the cheerleading program with a spirit squad, which according to the school's website, does not require gymnastics, dance, or cheer experience, is pretty insulting to actual cheerleaders who do the backflips and the double back handsprings and condition and lift weights to be able to do the stunts and routines they do.

I don't have anything against spirit squads; I'm all for school spirit, but I don't see why the school can't have both programs. Recognize cheerleading as a sport and let them do their competitions, and maybe have them perform a halftime routine. Then the spirit squad can do their cheers and pass out "spirit buttons" during timeouts and do their thing on the sidelines.

When people participate in sports at the D1 level, they are dedicating their lives to it, at least for while they are in college. Some of the cheerleaders at UConn said they chose the school specifically for its cheerleading program and now it's being dropped. Other schools are also reportedly dropping their programs.

I think part of the reason people don't want to recognize cheerleading as an official sport is the stigma associated with cheerleaders (dumb, bitchy, dumb and bitchy. Oh, and also slutty. Can't forget the slutty.)

When Taylor Swift sings, "She's cheer captain and I'm on the bleachers" she might as well be singing "She a skanky bitch and I'm super sweet." (you can clearly see this in the music video)

Not to mention that cheerleaders have traditionally been seen as "eye candy" for the male audience at the games. It's just a little disappointing that cheerleading is finally getting *some* respect (ESPN coverage, shows highlighting the hard work and skills it takes to become a cheerleader at all levels, etc.) and yet these girls still aren't considered athletes and the ones with the athleticism are being told they can now pass out spirit buttons (but still wear the skimpy cheerleading outfits - of course).

Rep. Jenkins Laughs at Uninsured Single Mother

2009-09-01T20:20:00.003-05:00

Representative Lynn "Republicans are struggling to find the 'great white hope'" Jenkins recently laughed at a young single mother who can't afford health insurance for herself or her son and also makes too much to qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP. Er.. maybe not laughed at her per say, just at the idea that government should have anything to do with helping her (even though Medicaid and SCHIP are government programs that Rep. Jenkins apparently thinks should stay in place)

Here is the video and the transcript is below:

Elizabeth Smith: I’m a 27 year-old single mother. I work full-time. I do not have health insurance. My employer does not provide health insurance to me and I cannot afford it privately. Why shouldn’t my government guarantee all of its citizens health care?

Jenkins: Thank you. I’m sorry, maybe you missed my opening remarks, but absolutely. That’s why we have Medicaid in the current system and that’s why under the alternative proposal we have an option for low-to-modest-income people to be able to afford health care and then we’ve got the SCHIP program for children. I think we’ve got all of the bases covered. (uh.. I don't think ya do, otherwise we wouldn't have UNINSURED PEOPLE)

Audience member: She’s not covered under SCHIP!

Jenkins: OK, if you’re not then you’re the perfect example for why we need reform and why we need it now but we have to do it right and if we can do an alternative proposal, as I’m suggesting, give you the money to go buy it in a reformed marketplace where it is affordable, that’s my preference rather than to saddle the nation with yet another government program when they can’t afford the government run programs we have.

Elizabeth Smith: I want an option that I can pay for. I work. I pay my bills. I’m not a burden on the state. I pay my taxes. So why can’t I get an affordable option. Why are you against that?

Jenkins: A government run program (laugh) is going to subsidize not only yours (laugh) but everybody in this room. So I’m not sure what we’re talking about here.

Jenkins: I think it comes down to the whole discussion of…

(crowd interjects, everyone is talking over each other)

Lynn: OK folks. Let’s be respectful. UH-OH (talking over crowd). We’re gonna make time for everybody. We’re gonna all listen to each other respectfully, even if we disagree. I think we can agree we need reforms, again it’s just how we gonna do it. I believe people should be given the opportunity to take care of themselves with an advancebale tax credit to go be a grown-up and go buy the insurance.

~ Regardless of how you feel about offering tax credits as the answer to healthcare reform, I think it's pretty safe to say that a 27 year old single mother who works full time, provides for her son, isn't on welfare or Medicaid or any sort of government program for financial aid, and is actively participating in the democratic process and respectfully making her voice heard is pretty grown up.

This is part of the problem... assuming that people who don't have or can't afford health insurance are just lazy bums who need to get a job, who aren't acting like "grownups," when that quite obviously isn't the case.

I Am Now Depressed...

2009-08-26T21:34:00.009-05:00

I've never heard of Fay Weldon before tonight, but apparently she was a feminist or maybe was a feminist?? I found this article about her via Broadsheet.

Here is what she has to say on feminism:

As for feminism, Weldon said: 'Life is much better, because you are not dependent on the goodwill of men. But the trouble is, the battle became too fierce, and the whole culture encouraged women to believe that men are stupid, useless creatures who are the enemy.

But then she is quoted as saying, "there are some things that women should simply not try to get men to do - such as make coffee, pick up their socks or clean the loo" (she's British)

So... men are NOT "stupid and useless" but expecting men to do things like make coffee, pick up their socks, or clean a toilet is setting the bar way too high?? My lady brain is confused.

But wait, there's more! She has other gems of wisdom for us ladies.

The thing is, you need to find a man who is cleverer than you, or at least not let him know that you are cleverer than him.

Women want boyfriends to be like their girlfriends, fun to go to the pictures with, but men are not like that. They want sex and they grunt. If you really want a man to be nice to you, never give him a hard time, never talk about emotions and never ask him how he is feeling.

As long as you have a sort of semi-good looking, able-bodied, intelligent man, you should have his baby

*This is by far the funniest quote ever. At first I was going to comment that I felt like I was in the 1950s after reading this article, but after reading that, I now feel like I'm on the Maury Povich show. "You are breathing, have a pulse and you are NOT a deaf one armed mutant... congratulations, you ARE the father!"

So to summarize, find a man smarter than you, but no need for him to be too smart. And by all means, if you yourself are smart, do NOT let on. Men are not stupid and useless but cannot be expected to do menial tasks like cleaning up after themselves. All men want is sex and all they do is grunt. Did I say they are NOT stupid and useless?? Feminism is totally to blame for society thinking that men are stupid and useless. But if you want to find and keep a man, you should set your standards low because men are pretty stupid and useless...I mean, CRAP.

By the way, this woman has been married three times. Interesting.

Talk about mixed messages on how women should act. I think we get enough of the "be sexy but not so sexy people will think you're a slut" and "be smart but not so smart that people will think you're stuck up" and "be driven and ambitious, but not so driven and ambitious that a man will feel threatened by you" messages from society as it is, and now former "feminists" are saying "be independent but not too independent." My lady brain is going to explode! No, but in all seriousness it really just makes me depressed.

Sometimes I think I should stop seeking out this stuff (blogs, articles, etc. related to feminism) I don't really have any super close female friends in my life anymore (that are nearby) and so I mostly hang out with guys, and I get so many comments on how stupid feminism is and how it's just a bunch of girls whining (oh my bad, not just girls, but "ugly girls" or "fatties" or "lesbians") and there's no need for it. It's not like I even talk about it all the time either. I basically roll my eyes at sexist comments and usually only talk about feminism if someone asks me a direct question about it.

But the thing is, the more I read this kind of stuff, the more I realize that there IS a need for feminism. Or you don't even have to call it "feminism" if you don't want to, whatever. Ugh, this post was supposed to be witty and sarcastic, but not I am just depressed. Depressed that this is what women are telling other women they need to do to have a successful relationship. Depressed because I care about it so much, but I'm starting to feel like, what's the point?

The last time I was at this crossroads (either embrace feminism and do my best to become educated about it so I don't sound like an idiot or drop it altogether and never talk about it) I chose the former. But now all of a sudden (and I literally mean all of a sudden) I feel like I'm at this crossroads again and I'm leaning towards the latter. Like, maybe I should just go back to being "normal." But, I don't really know what that is. And, like the blog says, I would just be pretending anyways.

Healthcare is NOT just an issue for Seniors

2009-08-24T20:36:00.008-05:00

And young people are definitely NOT AWOL from the "healthcare fight."

This article provides a few anecdotes from young people (18-29) who seem to be disengaged from the debate on healthcare reform, but I have read countless articles and anecdotes from the same age group (and other age groups, including seniors) who desperately want reform. Just because they're not showing up to townhalls with posters of Obama being likened to Hitler does not mean young people aren't engaged.

Yes, young people are generally healthier and thus less likely to need insurance NOW, but they're not stupid, and they can see we're in a system that's broken. We can see that having employer based health insurance no longer makes sense for a global economy where the average person changes careers or jobs 8 times in their lifetime. It's no longer makes sense when close to 40% of small and medium business don't even offer insurance to their employees. It no longer makes sense when employers that DO offer health insurance are pushing the rapidly rising costs of premiums onto employees while actual wages remain stagnant. Young people are just as likely to get laid off from a job (if they can find one after college) and can subsequently lose their employer based health insurance. Also young people in the education field or any field with unions are more likely to be subjected to "last hired, first fired." And if they lose their health insurance, their options are COBRA (which in some cases could cost 1/3rd of their salary which they no longer have) or find individual private insurance.

Other people who have individual private insurance are that 40% of full time workers in small and medium businesses whose employers don't offer health insurance, part time workers (often working mothers or YOUNG PEOPLE in college) and people who are self-employed. THESE people are forced into the individual market where premiums and deductibles are EVEN HIGHER. And if these people have any sort of "prexisting condition" they might be denied coverage altogether. Also, some people get insurance only to have their claim denied because they left something out on their application. And the insurance companies are rewarding their employees for finding errors and denying coverage.

Also, most women who give birth are in their 20s so I'd argue that young women and young families are VERY concerned about healthcare reform considering that an average in hospital delivery with no complications (not including prenatal care) is $7,000.00-$10,000.00. Most people don't have that lying around and thus rely on their health insurance to pay for it. Private insurers won't even cover you if you're pregnant. A pregnant woman is also responsible for prenatal care, which if neglected is "technically a violation of the law (according to family law experts, women could be prosecuted for neglect, though they rarely if ever are)" - see link above. Then of course we have to worry about healthcare costs for the babies once they're actually born, but why would young people care about that??

Young people are also more likely to be on their parent's insurance plan (at least the 18-25 set. Most are kicked off at 23 or if they cease to be a full time student) and with the unemployment rate hovering around 10% (not including part time workers who would like to work full time) and job losses surmounting, this age group knows their parents are susceptible to job loss just like anyone else, and their health insurance is in jeopardy.

1 in 3 20somethings does not have health insurance. Most young people do want to have health insurance, and most know that system we have right now is not working. It's leading Americans into bankruptcy. 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems and 78% of those filers had insurance

The Associated Press is right in that we're not hearing from young people in the media on healthcare reform, but that doesn't mean they don't care. I'd like to see less coverage on people holding up "Obama is a Kenyan Nazi" posters and more coverage on how people of all ages will be affected by reform, and also how the current system is affecting the lives of average Americans.

Don't get me wrong, I think seniors have every right to be concerned about how healthcare reform will affect them. I think it's sad that several media outlets are trying to stop the Democrat's plan for healthcare reform by telling seniors that Obama wants to set up "death panels" and euthanize them, when that has been thoroughly debunked and discredited. (I also find it ironic that most seniors who are protesting a government or public option are on Medicare, a government program).

I am young person (25) and was an Obama supporter after he won his party's nomination. And by "Obama supporter" I do not mean "Obama girl." I actually follow politics and agreed with many of the things he campaigned on, including healthcare reform. So it enrages me to no end to read stuff like this saying that young people are not engaged in healthcare reform. It's hard to always know exactly what's going on, and there's so much politics involved that it takes away from the core reasons why I and many others believe reform is so important and necessary. And, though I'm a self-professed liberal, I honestly do try to listen to both sides and can admit that conservatives do have some legitimate concerns, like for example, making sure that doctors and hospitals get compensated fairly.

However, I have made a personal decision to not listen to any commentator, Republican or Democrat, who says, "we (America) have the best healthcare system in the world." That is simply not true, and to say so is dishonest. The U.S. health care system is ranked 37th in the world by the World Health Organization. We rank 47th in the world for life expectancy. The only thing we rank #1 in is cost. The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country

Even though I'm irritated at the idea that young people are "AWOL" from the healhcare fight (actually I prefer "push for healthcare reform") I can see why it seems that way. Heather Smith, executive director of Rock the Vote (geared toward young people) is quoted as saying:

What we've learned by working with this generation through polling is that attacks, rather than dialogue, doesn't attract them. Beyond the screaming, there's a tremendous amount of interest and concern among young people. It's just not something you see.

She's exactly right; young people ARE turned off by the screaming, the insulting, and the attacking. They WANT to be involved, and they know that whatever is decided WILL affect them.

How's that for AWOL??

"Beauty and the Beast" - Seriously?

2009-08-14T10:34:00.008-05:00

Tomorrow night will be historic for Women's MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) and women's sports in general. Female fighters Gina Carano and Christiane Santos will be the main event in a series of fights that will air on Showtime.

Gina Carano has been dubbed "the face of women's MMA" partially because she is one of the best fighters in the world and partially because of her "good looks" that the media likes to focus on. Christiane Santos is just as good of a fighter if not better in some areas, but she is less well known. Partially because she is not an American fighter and partially because she isn't doing Maxim photo shoots like Carano.

A lot of coverage on Carano has to do with how she is a "knockout fighter with knockout looks." I always laugh when I read coverage like this. (WHAT? A woman can be pretty and feminine AND be good at a sport? SHUT UP.)

I do, however, want to give a lot of sportswriters credit because a lot of them covering the event tomorrow night are focusing on the fight, the fighters, the tactics they may use, etc. without bringing looks into the discussion.

But, alas, there is one "special" piece I'd like to discuss, and it comes from none other than Sports Illustrated, perhaps the most well known sports magazine of all time. Here is the title of the article by Ben Fowlkes: "Carano-Santos set for Strikeforce main event on Saturday."
Here are the first couple of paragraphs:

Let's go ahead and admit the obvious: If Strikeforce's main event this Saturday night were a beauty contest instead of an MMA fight, it would be a blowout. With her classic features and girl-next-door charm, it's not surprising that Gina Carano is the one doing magazine layouts while Cris "Cyborg" Santos is more likely to get hired to work security at a beauty pageant than participate in one.

But what should be equally obvious is that good looks have never won a fight. When men compete, never do we even bother talking about it. It's irrelevant, and not terribly interesting.

Yet with Carano and Santos, the 'Beauty and the Beast' comparisons seem unavoidable, and "Cyborg" has had just about enough of it.

Yes, completely unavoidable to refer to two serious female athletes as Beauty and the Beast ...even though though there have been dozens of articles today that have managed to avoid it.

What's funny to me is that he starts off the article by discussing the "attractiveness" (or lack thereof) of the fighters and THEN goes on to say that looks are irrelevant and it's a double standard. (a tiresome one at that!)

The fact that it's even part of the discussion in women's MMA is an obvious double-standard, and a tiresome one.

Then how about you DON'T DISCUSS IT. If Gina Carano wants to pose in Maxim magazine, that's her prerogative, but Sports Illustrated is NOT Maxim. Let Maxim talk about what a "hottie" Gina Carano is, and just talk about the sport.

Apparently that's too much to ask because even after he finally gets around to talking about the actual fight, he still has to bring it back to the looks.

The trouble is, the issue becomes complicated somewhat when Carano is involved. Her fame is inextricably tied to her good looks, despite her undefeated record.

This is true, she should be recognized for her fighting ability and other fighters shouldn't be denied coverage because they don't have Carano's good looks. But it's articles like this that perpetuate the idea that we should watch Gina Carano because she's "a hot fighter", not "a good fighter."

As for Christiane Santos, the author seems to think she is at a disadvantage because of her "beastly" looks.

Santos, whose career hasn't suffered all that much even without Carano's looks, isn't concerned.

SAY WHAT? You mean you can be a successful fighter even without good looks? SHUT UP.

My final bone to pick with the piece is that even though both fighters are mentioned in the headline, only Carano is pictured. Typically, if you're doing a piece on a title fight/main event, BOTH contenders are pictured. But I guess we can't have people looking at a fighter who isn't as pretty as Gina Carano... so if you're wondering what the "beastly" Christiane Santos looks like, here's a picture:

Pretty much looks like an MMA fighter, and a normal woman. Minus the rippin' abs.

Change Your Name...Or Else!

2009-08-12T19:32:00.009-05:00

Here in America, most women take their husband's last name when they get married. Not a big deal, I took my husband's last name and am fine with it. However, it's an entirely different matter to LEGALLY REQUIRE a woman to change her name, as half of a recent survey panel (815 people) said they would be a-okay with.

Dear Survey Respondents: ARE YOU SERIOUS?

I wonder what they think should be the punishment for a woman keeping her name. I mean it would be breaking the law... so, jail time? A fine until she changes it? A 3 hour wait in the social security office plus hours of hassle changing it on various legal documents? Oh wait, that's the punishment FOR changing it..

Seriously, what if she just doesn't want to change it? What if she wants to hyphenate it? What if she and her husband want to join forces and combine their names into some super cool combination of their names celebrity style?? (i.e. Kimberly BOWARD??) I actually have read of couples doing that, which seems kinda silly, but I don't think they should be put in jail for it.

I can see why it's easier to take one last name. Let's say I went the hyphenated route and then my daughter, since she will be a feminist of course, also wants to hyphenate her name, and then HER kids could have 4 last names... yeah, it could get kinda crazy. Plus it would make tracing family history hard. I get it.

But I also get why a woman would want to keep her given name, especially if she's a professional who has made contacts and relationships over the years, all who know her by a certain name. Or say a woman is famous, maybe she is a writer. If she changed her name, readers might be confused and not buy her books because they see a different name on the cover and don't associate it with her.

There's a whole host of reasons for or against keeping your given name, but it should most definitely be a woman's choice. But according to this survey, half of Americans don't see it that way, which is kinda sad. Also another sad aspect of this article were the reasons people who don't think women should have a choice in the matter gave. The study author was quoted as saying, “Americans don’t want much government intervention in family life, so for 50 percent of Americans to feel this way was interesting." (unless we are talking about teh gays. Then government should totally get involved. Can't have them having families...)

She continues: “They told us that women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family. This was a reason given by many.”

I don't have a problem with the "becoming a part of my husband's family" part. I feel honored to be part of his family and I love them. But he has also become part of MY family. I do have a serious problem with the "losing your identity" part. I think it's just sad. You don't have to lose your identity when you get married.

This almost makes me want to change my name BACK to Borbely. Unfortunately, I have gotten used to NOT having to spell my last name to people every time I say it. Plus I don't want to have to wait 3 hours at the Social Security office again. But I am still shaking my fist!! (and shaking my head...seriously, LEGAL REQUIREMENT?!) One could only hope that if the people who checked "yes" for "legal requirement" REALLY thought about it, they would realize how dumb that actually would be.

No Government Healthcare! (Except Medicare)

2009-08-12T11:19:00.003-05:00

Some guy at a townhall meeting in Missouri: We don't want government involved in our healthcare! PERIOD!

Senator Claire McCaskill (D - Missouri): OK. Please let me see a show of hands of who here in this room has Medicare.

(Almost all hands go up, as it's an older crowd)

Senator Claire McCaskill: OK. Now raise your hand if you have Medicare and you want to get rid of it.

(NO HANDS GO UP)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the irony in the fact that some of the people protesting government becoming more involved in healthcare are also on Medicare, A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.

I really like Claire McCaskill, and now I like her even more after seeing the way she calmly and respectfully handled herself at this townhall meeting where people were shouting, harassing, insulting, and basically not being constructive at all.

I think she has serious potential to become the first female President. You heard it here first. Claire McCaskill - 2016. :)

Yet Another Reason Why Insurance Companies need to be Kicked out of the Healthcare System

2009-08-03T21:34:00.002-05:00

A woman had to search high and low for an individual policy that would provide maternity benefits. And she found one for the bargain price of $500 per month + an additional $126/ month for the maternity benefits, not to mention thousands in copays & deductibles. The policy clearly stated, “For an additional $126 a month, you will receive benefits for covered pre- and post-natal care as well as covered services associated with the delivery.” It did not so clearly state that her benefits were capped at $3000.00 making the "benefits" barely worth the premiums and sticking her with a $22,000 hospital bill.

This seriously makes me ill, and is one of many reasons why I choose to not have children at this time. Yes, I currently have group health insurance, but if I have to take any time off work to you know, be pregnant, I could lose my job as currently in the US employers with less than 50 employees are not required to provide any maternity leave paid or unpaid, meaning I would get my vacation/sick time for the year (15 days) and could lose my job if I took any more time off than that. And subsequently lose my health insurance. If I was pregnant, I would not be able to find coverage in the individual market because my fetus would be considered a "prexisting condition."

A lot of this I already knew and so I'm ranting. But I did learn something new from this article. "A c-section is a pre-existing condition." Awesome, so if I ever do decide to get pregnant and have to have a c-section (which is often REQUIRED by hospitals) and then have to switch insurance for any reason, I should probably not count on that insurance paying for any costs related to baby #2. And I may have trouble finding coverage at all, unless I am sterilized.

This is all starting to sound like a bad science fiction novel to me. Yet another reason why I'm for a single payer system. But that will probably never happen here. If we do get healthcare reform here, it will probably be piecemeal reform that will have "something to please everyone" and we will still have insurance companies screwing people. Anyone who is afraid of a single payer system because it will "ration healthcare", sorry to tell ya, but IT'S ALREADY BEING RATIONED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES.

I have shared these concerns with Greg, who said that if we do ever get pregnant, I should give birth in a bathtub. Awesome. I'm guessing he'd probably feel different if he was the one with the uterus.. but unfortunately that almost seems like a rational option.

"Smart Girls Marry Money"

2009-07-23T19:13:00.004-05:00

About a month or so ago I saw some reviews on a new book called "Smart Girls Marry Money: How Women Have Been Duped Into the Romantic Dream--And How They're Paying For It"

The basic premise seemed to be that women need to think more about their financial security before they get married, not by accumulating wealth themselves but by marrying into money. (Cause if a man has money he'll n-e-e-ever lose it, what with the stock markets and real estate being so stable nowadays)

I remember trying to come up with a coherent response to this premise other than "that's stupid" but ended up forgetting about it. I think what really pissed me off was that I read in several reviews that the authors said something to the effect of "You'll never earn as much as a man, and if you do succeed, you'll regret it. Empowering ourselves economically can undermine our sexual power"

Uh...ok. So basically, women should resign themselves to the fact that women don't make as much as men in the workforce, and feel empowered by being "sexy" and finding a man with a fat wallet, or something.

Thankfully, I read a great article today on MSN money by Liz Pulliam Weston who articulately explains why this idea is utter nonsense.

I really like her (Liz). She writes for MSN money all the time, so if you've ever clicked on an article from the Money section on the MSN homepage, you've probably read something by her before. She's not an uber feminist or anything, though she does throw in a Betty Friedan reference. This article really just breaks the argument down without being condescending (like I normally am)

Ford and Drake explicitly endorse the secret fantasy entertained by too many women: that someone or something will rescue them from having to deal with their own finances.

Then there's the other problem: Gold digging often doesn't work. Daddy Warbucks can die, lose his money or show you the door right before a sunset clause in your prenuptial agreement qualifies you to share in his wealth.

Liz is saying gold digging=bad (and stupid) BUT she also says you also shouldn't necessarily marry a gambling drunk who doesn't care about paying off debt or saving for the future.

Gamblers, addicts and drunks will put you on the fast track to financial misery, but so will someone who won't control his spending, who drags around credit card debt and who refuses to save for the future.

To summarize, it's important for women to not take advantage of men financially (i.e. marrying for money) but also to not be taken advantage of either.

I don't think I will be reading "Smart Girls Marry Money." Sure, it may be "just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor man" but what happens when the riches go away?

In a perfect world, everyone would be able to accumulate wealth, give money to charity, send their kids to college, travel, and retire with dignity. But let's face it, no matter how much you plan or dump into your 401K, wealth can be a temporary thing as we have all been made aware in this recent recession. Everyone knows someone who's been affected, if they haven't been affected themselves.

In an economic climate like this, especially when men are losing their jobs at a faster rate than women (because of job losses in traditionally male dominated jobs like construction and manufacturing) it's seems like marrying men for money is not so smart economic advice. So while the authors of this book are worried about undermining their "sexual power" real people are worried about undermining their future due to potential job losses, loss of health insurance, and loss of their home - if they haven't lost these things already.

So, ladies, if you want some smart economic advice, I'd skip Smart Girls Marry Money, and stick to reading Liz's column on MSN Money. :)

Still Single??

2009-07-19T08:55:00.002-05:00

Sarah Haskins has the answers. (She always does.)

Searching for Common Ground

2009-07-03T08:42:00.014-05:00

Sometimes you read something that just makes you want to bang your head against your computer screen. I just read an article by Steve Waldman, editor of Beliefnet which consisted of an email transcript between Steve and pro-life blogger Jill Stanek.

Steve Waldman is one of many evangelical leaders who are advocating common ground amongst pro-life and pro-choice groups to reduce abortion. His "common ground fantasy" consists of pro-life leaders standing up and declaring, “We will be open to looking at family planning efforts, including contraception, to reduce the number of abortions.” This would be followed by a pro-choicer saying, “We accept that society would be better if there were fewer abortions.” Seems like a reasonable step in the right direction to me.

Jill Stanek, however, is not interested in any common ground and opposes any and all forms of abortion. She also supports making any and all forms of abortion illegal, an important distinction between those who may be personally pro-life but don't think that government should interfere in that decision, or possibly that government should interfere, but only after a certain point or in a certain case (i.e. if the woman is a minor, if the baby is viable, if there are health concerns for the mother and/or baby, etc.)

Tellingly, she is also opposed to any and all forms of contraception, the heart of the discussion in this particular exchange with Waldman. Waldman asks:

Jill, I'm curious about something.... IF family planning could be disentangled from Planned Parenthood funding, would you support it? (By the way, by family planning I mean education and health care that includes abstinence education and birth control education)

Jill responds, No, I would only support abstinence training with perhaps an explanation of the harm of contraceptives - the failure rate, that the pill is composed of artificial female steroids, etc.(Hormonal contraceptives are bad for women.

The failure rate is actually very low, and increases when not used correctly. (an argument for providing information on correct usage) You can also see my post here as to why hormonal contraceptives are not bad for most women. Continuing her response:

We don't have training on how to drink alcohol, which we oppose, but here's how to drink if you must. We don't have training on how to take drugs, which we oppose, but here's how to shoot up if you must.

Steve, comprehensive sex ed has ruled the roost for over 40 years and is an astounding miserable failure. It has only increased the volume of kids having sex, getting abortions, and catching STDs (which are now out of control)

Actually in regards to alcohol, we kind of do. For example, my parents explained to me the dangers of alcohol, but insisted that if I was going to drink I should never under any circumstances get behind the wheel. They didn't leave me ignorant about the dangers of drinking and driving because they didn't want me to drink. In the same way, I don't think we should leave young adults ignorant about the dangers of having unprotected sex because we don't want them to have sex.

In regards to "shooting up drugs" that is illegal and dangerous for people of all ages. Sex, on the other hand, is natural and biological, so I don't think it's a great comparison.

The last point is probably the craziest one. First of all, federal funding has actually been given to abstinence only education over the last 8 years and it is only recently with the new administration that this is beginning to change. Unfortunately, federal funding for abstinence did not reduce the number of teens having sex, and actually increased the teen pregnancy rate after it had previously been on the decline for 14 years.

This does not mean that we need a "contraceptive only" message, but rather that a combined approach would be more effective

In the exchange between Waldman and Stanek, Ms. Stanek states:

The thing for the other side to acknowledge is that all statistics show comprehensive sex ed and "family planning" (widespread contraceptive distribution) have only served to increase illicit sexual activity and its consequences.

Not only is this untrue, but also reinforces the idea of a baby as "punishment" for sexual activity that many conservatives lambasted.

But it gets crazier.

One potential action of hormonal contraceptives is to abort a 5-9 day old preborn baby. And that's all IUDs do - abort.

~ Birth control works in 3 ways:

1. Prevents ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle) no egg = no baby.
2. Thickens the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released
3. Affects the lining of the uterus in a way that prevents fertilized eggs from implanting into the wall of the uterus

In most cases, hormonal birth control simply prevents ovulation. And IUD does not prevent ovulation but prevents fertilization of the egg, and also affects the uterine lining.

The definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is that pregnancy begins at implantation. Although there has been some debate in some medical journals in regards to that definition, hormonal birth control and IUDs are generally not classified as abortifacients except by few extreme pro-life groups who not only want to eliminate abortion but also contraception, as is made quite clear by Jill's statement next statement here:

Contraceptives are the root of abortion. "Contraceptive" means anti-conception. Contraceptives establish a mindset of hostility toward the blessing of children.

I just don't even know where to start here. Of course children are a blessing, but most women simply don't follow the "Quiverfull" method which forgoes all methods of birth control, including natural family planning, and have as many children as God and her body will allow. (an example would be Michelle Duggar...the 18 and counting Michelle Duggar). It's just not practical. And if we start going the route of classifying birth control as abortion, it's going to have dangerous consequences. People like Jill Stanek want abortion to be illegal. They also think birth control is a form of abortion. Therefore, logic would follow that they want birth control to be illegal.

It just seems like the pro-life movement is stabbing itself in the foot when it has leaders like Jill Stanek who refuse to budge. As I've said before, only those losing appeal for compromise. Winners don't have to and shouldn't. At any rate, pro-lifers never will.

I think they need to realize that even people who are pro-choice want to eliminate the need for abortion. If women and families only got pregnant when they wanted to be, I think everyone on both sides of the debate would rejoice. I certainly would. Unfortunately, this isn't happening as nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.

It seems like the best way to reduce abortion is to reduce unintended pregnancies in the first place. Going on a crusade about birth control is going to alienate most moderates, as most people don't have a problem with birth control and think it is a good way to prevent unintended pregnancy.

I wish that this wasn't even a political issue at all, and that people would simply come together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies through access and education about contraceptives, by making adoption more available, and by providing resources for women who do carry their child to term. (oh yeah and also making it easier to work outside the home and care for a child at the same time - but that's another post). That's my "common ground fantasy."

0-LOVE

2009-06-29T21:03:00.005-05:00

Apparently in tennis, specifically in the prestigious Wimbledon tournament, certain players get prime court spots, with the most prime being "Centre Court". Who would get the honor of playing on this coveted court...obviously the better players right? Wrong. There are actually several factors, one of which is the attractiveness of the player. Of course, this is only true for women's tennis. Because obviously factoring in a man's "attractiveness" while he was playing a sport would be CRAZY! But yet it's totally cool and normal for players that wear skirts... (which I never really understood)

According to one BBC source:

It's the Wimbledon play committee, not us who decides on the order of play. But obviously it's advantageous to us if there are good-looking women players on Centre Court. No one has heard of many of the women now, so if they are pretty it definitely gives them an edge. Our preference would always be a Brit or a babe as this always delivers high viewing figures. It's not a coincidence that those (on Centre Court) are attractive.

Salon points out that for her Friday match at Wimbledon, ten-time Grand Slam champion Serena Williams was designated to play conspicuously out of the way, on the tournament's second stage, while 28th seed Sorana Cirstea occupied the prime real estate of Centre Court.

For what it's worth, I think Serena is an attractive woman. Neither Serena nor her (also world recognized tennis player) sister Venus are what you would think of when you think of a "typical" female tennis player, but who the fuck cares? They're ranked #2 & #3 in THE WORLD. And that's all that should matter when it comes to anything tennis related.

I actually watched part of the tournament this Sunday for about 15 minutes with Greg and his dad. Not our normal Sunday activity, (usually golf is on) but it was on and apparently no one could find the remote and/or everyone was too lazy to change the channel (I think I heard "why are we watching tennis" at least 3 times within that 15 minutes). But anyways, one of the Williams sisters was playing, I think it was Venus and both Greg and his dad commented that her opponent "looked like a man." Gee I wonder what court they playing on; they must have been playing in the parking lot what with "ugly" Venus and her "man-looking" opponent! It's just really interesting to me because I don't often (or ever) hear them discuss the attractiveness of the male golfers or football players or baseball players they often watch on TV. Probably because IT DOESN'T MATTER. But flip on a woman playing a sport, and all of sudden it's all about her looks.

I don't mean to pick on my husband or my father-in-law because I love them both and really, they're both pretty progressive guys (lucky for me!) but it is kind of ridiculous. And yeah, I get the "whatever sells/fills the seats" argument. But if that's all that matters, and looks really are that important let's just kick out the "unattractive" players. Or better yet, why play tennis at all? Just take the good looking ones, and put them in bikinis. (or maybe they could play tennis in their bikinis!) That will fill the seats.

Real Men Get F***** Up in Vegas

2009-06-25T19:00:00.012-05:00

Andrew Klavan tells us or tells men, rather, how to be a real man. Just like the guys on The Hangover! Before I comment on his article I'd like to preface this post with two things.

1. Yes I did see The Hangover, and I thought it was hilarious. Hilarious in a completely ridiculous and absurd way, but still hilarious.

2. This post may contain some spoilers to "The Hangover."

He starts by pointing out that the roles of men and women in typical "dude" movies like this are pretty narrow, or "squirrelly" as he puts it.

The guys are all children whose manhood consists exclusively in hell-raising. The women are either fun-loving party girls or grim, death-of-pleasure wife/mommies who seem ever ready to take their little menchildren by the ears and force them to wash the dishes while they stand by wagging their fingers.

Yeah... that's about right. "Bitch" or "slut" are usually the two types of women in these kinds of movies. In The Hangover, Rachel Harris plays superbitch to Ed Helms "manchild." Sometimes the "bitch" isn't ALWAYS bitchy but she definitely doesn't want her man to have any fun. All she cares about is responsibilities and bills and lame stuff like that. She is a nag, always complaining about her boyfriend smoking pot all the time and not having a job. (Old School, Knocked Up, Stepbrothers, etc.)

But back to the Hangover, in which we have characters who are the epitome of "real men." A brief character analysis of these "real men."

Doug AKA "The Groom" - Probably the only one that real women would actually want to date if he existed in real life. Typical good-looking guy next door who is also well off as demonstrated by his nice suits. Doug is excited to get married and reluctantly agrees to let his friends take him to Vegas where he thinks he's going to drink a few beers and play some blackjack with his buddies. Incidentally, Doug is both central to the plot and practically nonexistent in the movie. (He is "missing" for most of the movie as his friends wake up not remembering anything and unable to find him.)

Phil AKA "The Bad Boy" - Schoolteacher by day, menace to society by night. Phil is the instigator, trouble maker, and spender in the movie. (or at least he uses peer pressure to get his friends to pony up - super mature). He does not think twice about stealing a cop car. He preys on his friends weaknesses to get them to do things like spend $4000 a night for a suite in Vegas and marry strippers in the middle of night. But he is, as all bad boys are, oh so dreamy.

Stu AKA "The Nerd" also "The Wuss" - Stu is a nerdy but likable dentist. He lets his fiance ("The Bitch") walk all over him, even though she cheated on him, has to ask permission to do anything and of course has to lie about going to Vegas. He also lets his friends walk all over him, but that is portrayed as super cool because how else would they pay for such a manly penthouse in one of the most expensive hotels in Vegas?!

Alan AKA "The Stupid One" - Alan is Doug's soon to be brother-in-law. He is also borderline mentally retarded. He cannot be trusted to drive a car. His own father admits "there's something wrong with him." He also thinks a good way to bond with his new friends is by slipping ecstasy into their drinks - which turned out to be roofies, or "the date rape drug" - hence the reason why this group of "real men" cannot remember any of the previous night's shenanigans.

Andrew Klavan takes the art reflects life theory and postures that the real reason movies depict men like this is because of evil women who are threatening their masculinity.

More and more often I meet young guys just like this: overgrown kids who are their grim wives’ poodles. They sheepishly talk about getting a “pink pass,” or a “kitchen pass,” before they can leave the house. They can’t do this or that because their wives don’t like it. They “share” household and child-rearing tasks equally - which isn’t really equal at all because they don’t care about a clean house or a well-reared child anywhere near as much as their wives do. In short, each one seems set to spend his life taking orders from a perpetually dissatisfied Mrs. who sounds to me - forgive me but just speaking in all honesty - like a bloody shrike. Who can blame these poor shnooks if they go out and get drunk or laid or just plain divorced?

While there are probably some exceptions, I think most females don't really want to be the keeper of "the kitchen pass" but do expect some respect and courtesy and would simply like to know a general idea of where their significant other is going and when they're going to be back. And they show the same courtesy in return. At least that's how it works at our house. No, I don't need a play by play. But if you're going to Dallas for the weekend, I'd like to know. Obviously I am grim wife! (as all feminists are)

I am perplexed by the notion that sharing household tasks and child-rearing tasks is either impossible or completely emasculating. I can somewhat understand how some men may not care as much about a clean house as the women in their lives (a frequent argument in our house) but any man who does not care as much as his wife does about raising THEIR child (not HER child) is a terrible father and the opposite of what a real man should be.

In Andrew Klavan's world, marriage is designed for men to be "king of the castle"

I’m the old-fashioned King of the Castle type: my wife knew it when she married me, she knows it now, and she knows where the door is if she gets sick of it. And you can curse me or consign me to Feminist Hell or whatever you want to do. But when you’re done, answer me this: why would a man get married under any other circumstances? I’m serious.

:::consigning Andrew to Feminist Hell::: (because feminists are the devil who wish to consign all men to hell unless they agree to be our poodles.)

To be fair, Andrew says he's been married for almost 30 years and his marriage is somuchbetterthanyours because they adhere to traditional gender roles. He even posted a link to a tribute he wrote to her. Aww... Note that this was added as an update, probably in an effort to shrink the amount of hate mail in his inbox (no, none from me).

While Andrew Klavan believes that art is reflecting life in the case of The Hangover, I'm actually going to step out on a limb and give men a lot more credit than he does. I'm going to say that most men are NOT the irresponsible binge-drinking pot-smoking immature losers these "dude movies" portray them to be. Just as most women aren't the shrill, ball-crushing, fun-sucking bitches (or drunken sluts) that these movies portray THEM to be.

I'd love to see comedies where both the men AND women in the movie are complex multifaceted characters and not standard archetypes. And have the movie still be funny. Maybe one day. (I'm sure there are some out there, I just can't think of any at the moment...). I will admit that I laughed so hard I cried at The Hangover. It was without a doubt, a funny movie. But definitely not an accurate portrayal of manhood today.

Feminism Meets Father's Day

2009-06-20T16:50:00.006-05:00

Tracy Clark-Flory at Broadsheet wrote an article called Feminism Meets Father's Day.

The first half of it talks about a woman whose father didn't respect her a person, or at least respected her less than (in her eyes) her brothers simply because she was born a girl.

In the second half, Tracy talks about her own experience with her father, which is much more positive. She writes, You helped me feel that I was a perfectly OK person -- but, mind you, not a perfect little princess...He didn't try to turn me into a tomboy or a substitute son, he simply celebrated me as a kid.

Thankfully, I identify with Tracy and not at all with the first woman. Yes, I was "Daddy's girl" (and so was my sister) but we weren't "Daddy's princesses." And thank God for that. Sure we were spoiled in some ways (as most middle class children are) but we were also taught to do things for ourselves when at all possible, to be responsible for ourselves, the value of hard work, and especially the value of an education.

Never growing up, not even once, did I feel like my Dad resented the fact that he didn't have a son. I really like what Tracy said about her dad not trying to turn her into a tomboy or substitute son, but simply celebrating her as a kid. My Dad played sports with me and watched me play sports not because he was trying to pretend he had a son but because it was fun and that's what I liked to do. He embraced the things I was good at (soccer and running) and backed off on the things I was terrible at (golf). [I think we went to the driving range one time. And one time only.]

And it was ok to not like sports too as my sister was involved in more "feminine" but equally (if not more) athletic activities like dancing, cheer-leading and ice-skating. And while my Dad didn't exactly participate in dancing or cheer-leading (except when he was being goofy, much to my sister's disdain) he definitely encouraged her too.

It wasn't "you should do this activity because that's what girls do." And it wasn't "you should do this activity because it will make me feel like I have a boy". It was "you should be a kid and whatever activities you want to do, as long as they are productive and not getting you into trouble, are cool with us." (Yes my mom gets props too). As a side note, I think both my parents should get props for being encouraging at our sports/games without being one of those loud obnoxious parents who yells at everyone from the sidelines or installing a "you must win or else attitude" (I had enough of that instinctively anyways.)

Like Tracy, I think father's are very important and definitely relevant to feminism. I'm glad I wasn't treated like a "precious little princess" but also wasn't treated like a "substitute son." (although, funny story, I do remember moving furniture with my dad and my grandma freaking out. "DON'T MAKE HER LIFT THAT! SHE'S NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE KIDS!!" Well, we shall see...). Anyways, the point is that we were treated, well, like kids. Like, as Tracy said, "perfectly OK people." Not better than or less than what we would've been treated like if we were boys. Cheers to that. And Happy Father's Day.

Why Askmen.com Can Shove It

2009-06-17T21:40:00.002-05:00

Heard something interesting on the radio today. Shockingly, the people who brought us 6 Ways to Tell Your Girl to Lose Some Weight don't think women can be bosses! I'm actually not angry or even offended by this article because really it's laughable and devoid of any fact whatsoever.

Here are their reasons:

Women can’t control their emotions
All women have Queen Bee syndrome
Business was built by men, for men
Women hold grudges

I have never personally worked in management or been anyone's boss, but I have worked for both male and female bosses and really have no preference. Each manager has their strengths and weaknesses, and amazingly, it's different for each individual. Askmen.com might be surprised to learn that not all women are the same!

In regards to emotions, I will concede that generally speaking women are more emotional than men, but I think that most women in management can put their "emotions" in check and do their job. Except of course during that time of the month when their period tears are devastating everyone around them.

Work isn't like gym class for christ's sake. We don't get "personal days" every month when our "special friend" comes to town. Amazingly, women in management and non-management remain in the workforce without "going crazy" once a month. Of course, women owned businesses do shut down once a month... Give me a break.

Next, someone apparently thinks they're cool because they watched Mean Girls. And we know that all women are really just "mean girls" deep down! Uh, I mean "Queen Bees."

Like that bully from grade school, the Queen Bee has a similar overcompensation problem. If women in positions of power felt they were qualified and competent, would they really need to be such raging bitches? We think not.

That's right ladies, put your management dreams aside. Everyone knows you are a narcissistic raging bitch. My eyes hurt from rolling them so far back into my head.

I think my favorite is "Business was built by men, for men." That's right, it was. And our government was founded by white men and pretty much for white men at that time. So, according to Askmen.com's logic all females and minorities in government should turn in their key cards. That means you, Obama. Great, now we are left with Joe Biden as President, happy now??

Here's some words of wisdom for all us female aspiring managers:

Deals are still done with a handshake over cocktails in a dark lounge -- not really what you’d call feminine. In order for women to compete with any level of competence, they have to adopt masculine qualities. Take a look at the pants suit; seriously, what the hell is that? No one likes the pants suit. You know who wears a pants suit? Hillary Clinton

Hmm, that's interesting because in my organization the top two sales reps are both female. I guess they are masculine because apparently successful and competent = masculine. "Cocktails in a dark lounge" Umm...no. See, the world of business deals has evolved, unlike the asinine author of this article. Note: Women have been wearing pants for a long time. Like, a really long time.

I also really like the jab at Hillary Clinton. As if that's the worst possible person a woman could be. OH NO, NOT HILLARY! No, why encourage women have a successful career and you know, run for President. Women should be posing scantily clad for askmen.com, not working to stop human trafficking.

And finally, we come to "women hold grudges." Uh, I've talked men in the business world who have gotten screwed over by male bosses that had personal grudges against them. That's just stupid. Women don't hold grudges any more than men do. I don't even have a funny quip for this one. It's literally too stupid to insult.

So there you go, Askmen.com can shove it.

Letterman vs. Palin

2009-06-12T19:32:00.007-05:00

Dave Letterman has unfortunately (or conveniently, depending on how you look at it) found himself in a battle with she who shall not be reckoned with - Ms. Hockey Mom, Sarah Palin.

It all started when Dave said this on his show:

One awkward moment, though, during the game. Maybe you heard about it. Maybe you saw it on one of the highlight reels, one awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game. During the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.

Dave or whoever wrote the joke apparently thought it was Bristol (the one with the baby) at the game with Sarah Palin, but it turns out is was her 14 year old daughter Willow.

The Palins, both Sarah and her husband Todd were understandably not happy with the remark. So Sarah Palin goes on the Today show accusing him of "joking" about statutory rape and contributing to a culture where people laugh at cheap, misogynistic jokes that lead to the acceptance of abuse of young women.

I agree that the joke was in bad taste, but I think Dave made an honest mistake by thinking he was talking about Bristol when it was really the younger, still a minor, child Willow who was with Sarah Palin. Not that it excuses it, but it does give it a little more context.

First, Dave was definitely not joking about rape and he said as much on his show the other night.

I can't really defend the joke, I agree, unpleasant, ugly, but I would never, never think that it was funny to use a 14-year-old girl as joke like this, for God's sake.

Letterman is a comedian. He makes fun of people in the news. He makes fun of public figures. Whether the Palins like it or not, Bristol is a public figure. She may have unwillingly been thrust into the limelight during the campaign season, but she has quite willingly made herself the new poster girl for abstinence (and also, ironically, teen motherhood). She is an Abstinence Ambassador for the Candies Foundation and made the rounds on morning talk shows and town hall meetings as an advocate for abstinence.

I consider myself a feminist, but I think some people are taking it too far with throwing Letterman under the bus. For crying out loud, lawmakers are calling for CBS to fire Letterman. Seriously, the guy is one of the most beloved talk show hosts of all time. He admitted the joke was in bad taste and said he regretted saying it. He stopped short of apologizing, and perhaps he should apologize. But it should end there.

It's not a liberal vs. conservative thing either. A lot of people are saying "the media would never put up with jokes about Obama's daughters." Probably true, but they are 8 and 10 years old. No one's bringing the Palins' 8 year old daughter, Piper, into it. And as stated before, I don't think he meant to make a tasteless joke about the 14 year old daughter, either.

Many liberal pubs called out the sexism towards Sarah Palin during the campaign (while still vehemently disagreeing with her politics). I even personally called it out . But while I do agree that the joke was inappropriate, I'm just not getting all up into arms about this. This whole back and forth that has gone on needs to end. I think Dave would like it to end, even though it's bringing him ratings. Honestly, this is how I think the "conversation" should've gone down.

Letterman: :::makes inappropriate joke:::
Palin: Hey, I don't appreciate you saying that about my 14 year old daughter.
Letterman: Oh, I was actually talking about your 18 year daughter.
Palin: It's still inappropriate.
Letterman: You're right. I'm sorry, I didn't mean anything by it. It was supposed to be a joke, but I realize it was inappropriate.
Palin: Okay.

THE END.

But I have a feeling this will continue to drag out, and Sarah Palin seems pretty intent on doing so. Honestly, I think she likes the attention. Gotta stay on the people's minds until 2012! Haha, I really hope she is their nominee. Obama wouldn't even have to say anything.